Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Martin Trautmann]

On 19-05-28 21:17, Burkhard Burau wrote:
> Hallo Martin und hallo Martin, :-)
> 
> Danke für Eure schnellen und ausführlichen E-Mails.
> 
> Das GOV ist aus meiner Sicht gut, nur leider "nur" eine Datenbank,
> welche auf einer OSM-Karte die Lage einzelner, historischer Orte
> anzeigt. Deshalb begeistert mich die Darstellung nicht und kann eine
> zweisprachige Karte nicht ersetzen.

Die GOV hat in keinster Weise den Anspruch, mehrsprachige Karten zu
erstellen.

Aber sie ist ideal, um zu erfassen, was *war*.
GOV ist eine Datenbank, um die Chronologie zu archivieren.

> Würde man in der Danziger Gegend
> noch die kaschubischen Ortsnamen ergänzen, gäbe es sogar
> dreisprachige Ortsbezeichnungen. Teilweise sind diese kaschubischen
> Ortsnamen auch offiziell (z. B. als Zweitname an den Ortsschildern zu
> finden).

Offizielle Bezeichnungen sind definitiv eine Bereicherung für die OSM,
umso mehr, wenn sie auf offiziellen Ausschilderungen zu finden sind.

> Die slawischen Kaschuben sind eine nationale Minderheit in
> Polen. Als brauchbar finde ich die analogen zweisprachigen Karten des
> Hoefer-Verlag (https://www.hoeferverlag.de) von Ost-Mitteleuropa, nur
> sind die nur in Papierform erhältlich. Schön sind auch die Karten von
> Fritz Schulz
> (http://www.westpreussen.de/cms/ct/ortsverzeichnis/landkarte.php?karte=G4.jpg)
> von den ehemaligen Ostgebieten (mit Kirchspielangaben). Nur eben auch
> nur als pdf-Datei oder in Papierform erhältlich und zudem nur mit den
> deutschen Namen. 


> Mir ist klar, dass OSM kein historisches GIS sein
> kann, aber vielleicht eine z. T. zweisprachige Karte.

Das ist schon einmal die richtige Einstellung. Meine Empfehlung zur OSM:
Sie bildet ab, was *ist* - nicht aber, was *war*

Die OSM ist der falsche Ort, um Deutschland in den Grenzen vor 75 Jahren
zu zeigen. Und wenn du heute nach der Gemeinde Gischow suchst, dann
solltest du diese schon nicht mehr finden - denn diese wurde zum 26. Mai
2019 nach  Lübz eingemeindet.

> Was würde denn passieren, wenn ich bei einen heute polnischen Ort im
> OSM, z. B. mit "name:de=..." einen früheren deutschen Ortsnamen
> ergänzen würde. Wäre der dann automatisch im "deutschen OSM"?

Ja, genau so.

Ich habe gerade mal nachgesehen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/20830918 nennt tatsächlich
Karl-Marx-Stadt.

Sinnvoll kann sogar sein, wenn man FALSCHE Schreibweisen mit aufnimmt -
einfach, weil man versucht ist, diese zu suchen. Beispiel:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61044809
Château du Haut-Kœnigsbourg
name:de Hohkönigsburg
Beachte das fehlende c. Sinnvoll erscheint mir hier die Ergänzung, um
die Burg auch als old_name:de Hochkönigsburg zu finden.

Schönen Gruß
Martin



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[Maarten Deen]

IMHO the strategy for adding roads also should be on this list. The 
optionlist to add accessrights for "all, foot, motorvehicles, bicycle, 
horse" resulting in a foot=yes, motorvehicle=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes 
on all roads is creating redundant tagging.


Maarten

On 2019-05-29 06:29, Andrew Harvey wrote:

I'm not sure if this should be added, but at the time how iD decided
to add presets for lifeguards facilities was controversial.

We used to have documented on the wiki and in use:
emergency=lifeguard_place
emergency=lifeguard_base
emergency=lifeguard_tower

emergency=lifeguard_platform

Which each were to be used to map different kinds of lifeguard
infrastructure on the ground.

Prompted by a request at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918 it was then decided by
Bryan at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html
that "We have too many tags for different kinds of lifeguards.  This
is too confusing. I don’t want to have to show all these choices to
iD users."

And it was decided by the iD maintainers to change the existing used
and documented tag emergency=lifeguard_place to emergency=lifeguard,
and only support that tag and none of the other types of lifeguard
facilities.

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 08:50, Michael Reichert
 wrote:


Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of
iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed
controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well
to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those
involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael

--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.
(Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 May 2019, 02:45 by jwhelan0...@gmail.com:

> I understand in NYC a relative newcomer using the new validation feature of 
> iD has made a very large number of changes to NYC and that I think is the 
> sort of thing we wish to avoid.
>
Note that it becomes problem only when
combined with ignoring outside opinions
about tagging schemes.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[Andrew Harvey]

I'm not sure if this should be added, but at the time how iD decided to add
presets for lifeguards facilities was controversial.

We used to have documented on the wiki and in use:
emergency=lifeguard_place
emergency=lifeguard_base
emergency=lifeguard_tower
emergency=lifeguard_platform

Which each were to be used to map different kinds of lifeguard
infrastructure on the ground.

Prompted by a request at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918 it
was then decided by Bryan at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html that
"We have too many tags for different kinds of lifeguards.  This is too
confusing. I don’t want to have to show all these choices to iD users."

And it was decided by the iD maintainers to change the existing used and
documented tag emergency=lifeguard_place to emergency=lifeguard, and only
support that tag and none of the other types of lifeguard facilities.

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 08:50, Michael Reichert 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>
> Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
> mentioned.
>
> Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
> far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
> aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
> in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Marc Gemis]

additional things that can be part of the definition:
 - passages through embankments are (in general) not tunnels.
- when a road passes over another one, located in a cutting, does not
place the lower one in a tunnel (Antwerp ring road)
- when the road goes under a waterway, the road is in a tunnel

Again: exceptions will exist and they have to be seen as a rule of
thumb, not a hard definition.

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:46 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> AFAIK the tunnel=building_passage, this is not a tunnel, but using the
> tunnel tag anyway. I guess the same is true for culvert. I would not
> try to come up with a definition that is also applicable to those 2.
>
> Maybe my rule of thumb could be extended somehow for the metrotunnels,
> which are clearly underground, and are therefore tunnels. For the mole
> pipes, you write "dug out and covered", which is another indication
> that it is a tunnel.
>
> That being said, I guess you will never find a definition that works
> 100% of the time, because the real world is just messy.
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than 
> > the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict 
> > interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for 
> > passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as 
> > tunnel=building_passage.
> >
> > Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your 
> > interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most 
> > elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of 
> > material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth 
> > (grond/aarde) that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a 
> > tunnel.": Then the 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels 
> > South is NOT a tunnel. It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The 
> > whole thing is dug out, built and then covered with streets, buildings and 
> > here there a bit of gorund.
> > Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique 
> > and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel?
> > Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most 
> > likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO 
> > tunnels...
> > And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in Genval? The 
> > railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no tunnels?
> > On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has 
> > been mapped as a tunnel...
> >
> > Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing 
> > earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) 
> > like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, 
> > make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common 
> > practice...
> >
> > So to me these seem to be useless definitions...
> >
> > Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway 
> > around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. 
> > The cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). 
> > So where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a 
> > tunnel...? The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, 
> > you can see clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the 
> > railway and the other roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex 
> > traffic changers where it is often very hard to see what the original 
> > ground level was.
> >
> > @ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can 
> > perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge 
> > with layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = 
> > -1 doesn't mean it is below ground level.
> >
> > @ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed 
> > before the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. 
> > And the definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows 
> > whether to map things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which 
> > order roads, railways, etc. were constructed.
> >
> > So can someone can come up with a useful definition?
> >
> > Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open 
> > bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the 
> > fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level 
> > doesn't matter.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > StijnRR
> >
> >
> >
> > Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis 
> > :
> >
> >
> > This is the place:
> > https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> > 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Marc Gemis]

AFAIK the tunnel=building_passage, this is not a tunnel, but using the
tunnel tag anyway. I guess the same is true for culvert. I would not
try to come up with a definition that is also applicable to those 2.

Maybe my rule of thumb could be extended somehow for the metrotunnels,
which are clearly underground, and are therefore tunnels. For the mole
pipes, you write "dug out and covered", which is another indication
that it is a tunnel.

That being said, I guess you will never find a definition that works
100% of the time, because the real world is just messy.

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than 
> the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict 
> interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for 
> passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as 
> tunnel=building_passage.
>
> Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your 
> interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most 
> elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of 
> material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde) 
> that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a tunnel.": Then the 
> 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels South is NOT a tunnel. 
> It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The whole thing is dug out, 
> built and then covered with streets, buildings and here there a bit of gorund.
> Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique 
> and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel?
> Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most 
> likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO 
> tunnels...
> And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in Genval? The 
> railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no tunnels?
> On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has 
> been mapped as a tunnel...
>
> Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing 
> earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) 
> like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, 
> make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common 
> practice...
>
> So to me these seem to be useless definitions...
>
> Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway 
> around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. The 
> cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). So 
> where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a tunnel...? 
> The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, you can see 
> clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the railway and the 
> other roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex traffic changers 
> where it is often very hard to see what the original ground level was.
>
> @ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can 
> perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge 
> with layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = 
> -1 doesn't mean it is below ground level.
>
> @ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed 
> before the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. 
> And the definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows 
> whether to map things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which 
> order roads, railways, etc. were constructed.
>
> So can someone can come up with a useful definition?
>
> Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open 
> bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the 
> fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level 
> doesn't matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
>
>
> Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis 
> :
>
>
> This is the place:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> (sorry no Mapillary images yet).
>
> Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel
> under the E34/A11.
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > I think there is a tunnel under  the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate.  
> > There used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they 
> > created an underground passage for it.
> >
> > M
> >
> > Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard :
> >>
> >> @joost schouppe  To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same 
> >> structure as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars
> >>
> >> A tunnel is generally 

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[John Whelan]

The problem is www.openstreetmap.org has a link to edit OSM.  When it 
was first put in it probably was a very reasonable thing to do but we do 
not have a change management system in place and over time iD has changed.


The real problem is new mappers will naturally edit OSM through the link 
thinking it is the "official"way to do it and the editor has been tested 
and approved etc.


However as stated iD is evolving and is becoming more powerful.  I 
understand in NYC a relative newcomer using the new validation feature 
of iD has made a very large number of changes to NYC and that I think is 
the sort of thing we wish to avoid.


So mentally split the idea of ID as an editor and what should be the 
default editor for newcomers for OSM.  The requirements seem to be 
different.  If iD is not the default editor on www.openstreetmap.org 
then treat it the same as any other OSM editor.


If it is then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard that 
protects new mappers from creating havoc.  Whether this is a new mapper 
switch or a reduced fork of iD or a requirement that you cannot edit the 
map unless you have completed an online course and passed an exam first 
I wouldn't like to say.  I do know that HOT for example has very high 
turn over of mappers so a forty hour training course might not be 
welcomed by everyone even if we could agree the syllabus.


Cheerio John

Clifford Snow wrote on 2019-05-28 8:10 PM:
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? 
Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard?


On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan > wrote:


The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on
the web page of the website which implies that everything is
OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be
held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system
implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow,
mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:

Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside
projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them
are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one
software project seems like we already reached a decision, we
just need the data to back it up.

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert
mailto:osm...@michreichert.de>> wrote:

Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the
maintainers of iD
at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes
issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed
controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the
maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for
those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions
as well.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.

(Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on
mailing lists)

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



-- 
@osm_washington

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



--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch


--
Sent from Postbox 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[Clifford Snow]

Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't
they all be held to the same standard?

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan  wrote:

> The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web
> page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved
> which unfortunately is not the case.
>
> If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a
> higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, 
> wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>> Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects,
>> such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF
>> as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we
>> already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up.
>>
>> Best,
>> Clifford
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
>>> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>>>
>>> Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
>>> mentioned.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
>>> far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
>>> aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
>>> in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>>> ausgenommen)
>>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>>>
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @osm_washington
>> www.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>

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

Re: [Talk-it] highway=residential con access=permissive

[danbag via Talk-it]

Io sono per semplicità di taggatura e di lettura e la penso come 
Alfredo.CiaoDanilo
 Messaggio originale Da: Martin Koppenhoefer 
 Data: 29/05/19  02:28  (GMT+09:00) A: openstreetmap 
list - italiano  Oggetto: Re: [Talk-it] 
highway=residential con access=permissive 


Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:00 Uhr schrieb canfe :
Ciao Andrea,

non penso possa essere motor_vehicle=private (Only with permission of the

owner on an individual basis)

per due ragioni:

1) il permesso non è su base individuale, ma per categorie (contadini,

silvicoltori e pastori)


ma dovranno individualmente provare che hanno delle proprietà lì? Ci sono 
abitazioni lungo queste vie? E ci possono andare in macchina gli ospiti di 
queste persone? Allora sarebbe vehicle=destination.

 
2) non è il proprietario (owner) della strada a dare il permesso, ma è la

Regione demandando ai Comuni a "toglierlo".


togliere e dare è la stessa cosa in questo contesto, no? Una strada che era 
generalmente accessibile diventa limitata e di conseguenza serve il permesso.

 


Penso possa essere invece:



access= agricultural -- "Only for agricultural traffic. Note a farmer's

access track would be private rather than agricultural unless the track is

open to any vehicle used for agricultural purposes."


+1, in realtà vehicle=agricultural, altrimenti escludi anche i pedoni.

 


oppure



access= forestry -- "Only for forestry traffic."


se vogliamo fare questa distinzione, anche vehicle=agricultural;forestry è 
abbstanza 
comune:https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/motor_vehicle=agricultural%3Bforestry

 



Altrimenti pragmaticamente come dice @Alfredo Gattai:

motor_vehicle=no perche' chi ha il permesso sa di averlo


no, perché "no" non vuol dire che si può andarci con un permesso, vuol dire 
nessuno ci può andare. Se si vuole il permesso, il valore generico è "private".
Ciao,Martin
 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[john whelan]

The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web
page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved
which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a
higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, 
wrote:

> Michael,
> Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects,
> such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF
> as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we
> already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
>> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>>
>> Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
>> mentioned.
>>
>> Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
>> far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
>> aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
>> in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[Clifford Snow]

Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects,
such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF
as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we
already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up.

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>
> Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
> mentioned.
>
> Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
> far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
> aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
> in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


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

[Talk-es] Clasificación vías interurbanas Comunitat Valenciana (nuevo Decreto)

[Jordi MF]

Hola a todos,

Escribo porque he observado que en la wiki [1] no aparece información sobre
la clasificación de las carreteras en la Comunitat Valenciana. Hace poco se
publicó el DECRETO 46/2019, de 22 de marzo, del Consell, por el que se
aprueba el Catálogo del Sistema Viario de la Comunitat Valenciana [2]. Por
ejemplo, en este decreto se afirma que:
"Las carreteras con nomenclatura CV- y doble dígito configuran la red básica
de carreteras de la Generalitat. Las carreteras con nomenclatura CV- y
triple dígito configuran la red local de carreteras."

¿Habría que hacer una revisión de las etiquetas? ¿Nos basamos en este tipo
de decretos en OpenStreetMap?

No sé si se hizo una normalización en el pasado (me imagino que sí), pero en
definitiva os quería preguntar si creéis conveniente seguir dicho decreto
para normalizar/actualizar las carreteras de la CV y decidir si una
carretera es primary, secondary o tertiary. En caso afirmativo, supongo que
sería buena idea añadir la información a la wiki. ¿Qué os parece?

Saludos,
Jordi MF

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Espa%C3%B1a/Normalizaci%C3%B3n#Clasificaci.C3.B3n_seg.C3.BAn_la_Comunidad_Aut.C3.B3noma
[2] www.dogv.gva.es/datos/2019/04/04/pdf/2019_3352.pdf



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html

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

Re: [talk-au] Caltex on name-suggestion-index

[Charles Gregory]

Thanks Alex and Ian,

So it seems there are plenty of standard Caltex service stations in
Australia - any advice on how to stop entries labelled "Caltex" from auto
resolving to a "Woolworths Petrol" location when "update these tags" is
used?

Just changed the "brand" on the second entry in my original post from
"Caltex" to "Caltex Woolworths"?

I could play about of course, but I don't want to break things!

Regards,
Charles



On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:42 PM Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> Strictly speaking, I don't think that's true.  Some Caltex operated sites
> still branded as Woolworths Caltex, and offered the Woolworths facilities.
> You couldn't tell just by looking who owned what.
>
> Of course, now Woolworths has sold all its fuel outlets, and doesn't
> operate as a fuel retailer any longer.
>
> I'd go by the name on the sign - as these are likely to change over the
> past few months as the Caltex owned stores all revert to form.
>
> Ian.
>
> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 14:51, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:55 PM Charles Gregory 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are "Caltex" and "Caltex Woolworths" identical in some parts of
>>> Australia?
>>>
>>> "What is the difference between [the 535] Woolworths Caltex and [the
>> 680] Caltex locations?
>> Woolworths Caltex is a Woolworths owned fuel location, that sells Caltex
>> fuel. The shop at a Woolworths Caltex is a Woolworths store.
>> The shop at a Caltex location can be a Star Mart, Star Shop or The
>> Foodary."
>> https://www.caltex.com.au/woolworths
>>
>> The map on their website makes a distinction between the two when you
>> click on it https://www.caltex.com.au/find-a-caltex
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road junctions

[Gareth L]

Hello all,

Is there a nice example of mapping road junctions? Particularly ones that are 
spread out?
Basically, I’ve had a punt at mapping the junction between technology drive and 
mill road in Rugby. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.38125/-1.24981 It 
has all the turn restrictions correct, and I’d expect it to route beautifully, 
but... avoiding the mapping for the renderer pitfalls, it looks rather rough.
My objective here was actually to allow myself to map the pedestrian/cycle ways 
more clearly - especially the crossing islands - as the crossing doesn’t clear 
right across the junction, just across the lane. The issue is this large T 
junction is spread over a very large area of asphalt with filter lanes etc.

I guess my gripe is having a bunch of ways representing what is really a field 
of asphalt. I’d welcome some advice on this, even if it’s “oh gads, revert that 
to a simple T junction immediately”, although in that case I’d really like to 
know the right way to do it, if such a thing exists.

There’s substantial mapillary and google streetview imagery available of this 
location if you want some context.

Kind regards
Gareth

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

[OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Improving iD on osm.org (WAS: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform)

[john whelan]

Do we need the editor on the web page to be the latest and greatest?

I think a basic editor that allows you to add lines ie highways etc. POIs
with tags should meet 95% of a casual mapper's needs if not more.

A trimmed down stable version of iD should meet these requirements.

I think the first task is to determine what the requirements are for casual
mapping from the web page.  My thoughts are it is there as an introductory
tool and as such a complex editor may well overwhelm a new mapper.

There are other tools available for more complex mapping.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 5:53 PM Michael Reichert, 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> > I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> > approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> > with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> > balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> > "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
> >
> > It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> > to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> > even for the community itself.
> >
> > Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> > meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> > (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> > mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> > some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our
> site.
> >
> > We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
> > establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
> > applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
> > patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.
>
> I am not sure if pure patching (a hard fork) will work on the long term.
> Adding a blocking step in the release process might work in the
> beginning but after some time the members of the distribution team loose
> interest. In difference to projects with a volunteer dominated group of
> contributors as OSM Carto, the distribution team will not produce a lot.
> In contrast, its task is filtering. This can be torpedoed by the
> maintainers of the parent project by code changes requiring a tedious
> and boring application of the patches and the user base will ask what
> the benefit of the distribution team will be and why we need such a
> group at all. I have been active in WeeklyOSM for almost five years now.
> I have seen people joining and becoming inactive after some time. I have
> observed myself becoming more or less involved (varies a bit over time).
> It needs discipline and a large team to get an issue almost every week.
>
> I am pretty sure that there is another way to enable distributors of iD
> to build the iD they want. iD could offer a couple of switches in a
> central source file to disable or enable certain, controversial or not
> always necessary features. (This idea is inspired by build flags for C
> programmes but different) This concept might still need the application
> of patches to the central file but patching a single file which is
> basically a list of variable assignments appears easy to me.
>
> These build flags enable the maintainers to stay to their personal views
> on disputed matters but enables local communities more easily to host
> their local iD and therefore foresters diversity. If the maintainers add
> another feature which is not accepted for www.openstreetmap.org, the
> distribution team can still fall back on patching with all its
> consequences.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be]

 Hi,

First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than the 
wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict interpretation 
of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for passages of rivers 
underneath a road senseless, just as tunnel=building_passage.

Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your interpretations. 
Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most elaborated: "I apply the 
rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of material do you "see" before 
you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde) that was not placed there 
artificially, then you are in a tunnel.": Then the 'railroad tunnel' between 
Brussels North and Brussels South is NOT a tunnel. It is just a mole pipe (in 
the words of Gerard). The whole thing is dug out, built and then covered with 
streets, buildings and here there a bit of gorund.
Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique and 
are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel?
Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most likely 
made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO 
tunnels...And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in 
Genval? The railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no 
tunnels? 
On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has been 
mapped as a tunnel...

Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing 
earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) 
like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make 
a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common 
practice...

So to me these seem to be useless definitions...

Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway 
around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. The 
cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). So 
where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a tunnel...? 
The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, you can see 
clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the railway and the other 
roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex traffic changers where it 
is often very hard to see what the original ground level was.

@ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can 
perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge with 
layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = -1 
doesn't mean it is below ground level.

@ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed before 
the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. And the 
definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows whether to map 
things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which order roads, 
railways, etc. were constructed.

So can someone can come up with a useful definition?

Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open 
bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the 
fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level doesn't 
matter. 
Regards,
StijnRR



Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis 
:  
 
 This is the place:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(sorry no Mapillary images yet).

Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel
under the E34/A11.

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> I think there is a tunnel under  the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate.  There 
> used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they created an 
> underground passage for it.
>
> M
>
> Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard :
>>
>> @joost schouppe  To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same structure 
>> as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars
>>
>> A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and 
>> consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel 
>> if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put 
>> back the earth on top ! ;-)
>>
>> I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or 
>> motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground 
>> or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we 
>> classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone 
>> quoted from wikipedia.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

___
Talk-be 

[OSM-talk] Improving iD on osm.org (WAS: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
> 
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
> 
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.
> 
> We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
> establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
> applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
> patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.

I am not sure if pure patching (a hard fork) will work on the long term.
Adding a blocking step in the release process might work in the
beginning but after some time the members of the distribution team loose
interest. In difference to projects with a volunteer dominated group of
contributors as OSM Carto, the distribution team will not produce a lot.
In contrast, its task is filtering. This can be torpedoed by the
maintainers of the parent project by code changes requiring a tedious
and boring application of the patches and the user base will ask what
the benefit of the distribution team will be and why we need such a
group at all. I have been active in WeeklyOSM for almost five years now.
I have seen people joining and becoming inactive after some time. I have
observed myself becoming more or less involved (varies a bit over time).
It needs discipline and a large team to get an issue almost every week.

I am pretty sure that there is another way to enable distributors of iD
to build the iD they want. iD could offer a couple of switches in a
central source file to disable or enable certain, controversial or not
always necessary features. (This idea is inspired by build flags for C
programmes but different) This concept might still need the application
of patches to the central file but patching a single file which is
basically a list of variable assignments appears easy to me.

These build flags enable the maintainers to stay to their personal views
on disputed matters but enables local communities more easily to host
their local iD and therefore foresters diversity. If the maintainers add
another feature which is not accepted for www.openstreetmap.org, the
distribution team can still fall back on patching with all its consequences.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Power pole validation (was: mass iD validation arrives in NYC)

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:59 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 28 May 2019, 22:10 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
>
> I don't "fix" those because the validator is just looking at a node
> without a power pole. Often their isn't a pole at that location according
> to the imagery.
>
> Sometimes proper fix for that report is to delete node placed where there
> is no pole.
>
> It's actually more complex. Often there are numerous poles that haven't
been identified but show on the image and the power lines can be many km
away from where I was mapping, in an area I'm not that familiar with.

Automated fixes need to be done with caution. Some are simple, for example,
zip codes on highway which are likely artifacts from an import. Since we
don't add postal codes on highways they can be deleted.

I was just trying to point out that JOSM has had automatic fixes built in
for some time where iD is just catching up.



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] place de parking dan Paris [était: Peut-être enfoncé-je des portes ouvertes]

[marc marc]

Bonsoir,

Le 28.05.19 à 19:30, Jacques Foucry a écrit :
> Il y a ici : 
> https://opendata.paris.fr/explore/dataset/stationnement-voie-publique-emplacements/table/?disjunctive.regpri=GIG%2FGIC=19,48.85835,2.34721=jawg.streets

aucune idée de la fiabilité mais attention à la maintenance
vouloir renseigner les parkings jusqu'à l'emplacement individuel
en voirie, cela va faire un boulot de titan en maintenant
si tu regardes dans osmose opendata, tu verras que même
les objets qui varient peu manquent de bras pour être maintenu
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[OSM-talk] Power pole validation (was: mass iD validation arrives in NYC)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 May 2019, 22:10 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:

> I don't "fix" those because the validator is just looking at a node without a 
> power pole. Often their isn't a pole at that location according to the 
> imagery. 
>
Sometimes proper fix for that report is to delete node placed where there is no 
pole.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Peut-être enfoncé-je des portes ouvertes

[deuzeffe]

On 28/05/2019 19:30, Jacques Foucry wrote:

Salut la compagnies,


Hello,


Il y a un truc qui me chiffonne.

Il y a ici : 
https://opendata.paris.fr/explore/dataset/stationnement-voie-publique-emplacements/table/?disjunctive.regpri=GIG%2FGIC=19,48.85835,2.34721=jawg.streets

Vachement tout plein de belles infos parisiennes que l'on peut imaginer
fiable.

Sont-elles utilisées/recroisées dans OSM ?


Osmose prend déjà en compte des données de même type pour Bordeaux 
Métropole et la Communauté d'Agglo. Pau-Pyrénées, items 8130 à 32, il me 
semble. Pourquoi pas pour celles-là, en effet.



Je voudrais votre avis sur ces données, leurs fiabilités, leurs
intégrations, etc.


Si "ON" considère que ces données sont fiables, autant utiliser la 
partie OD d'osmose.


--
deuzeffe qui se demande s'il n'y avait pas un Vincent qui voulait faire 
le ménage dans la classif des items de l'OD d'osmose


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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:53 AM Dave F via talk 
wrote:

> I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds respectively.
> I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass edit
> ability?
>
> Yes - JOSM does allow mass fixes through the validator. I've even seen
suggestions to fix objects on ways that are outside of the downloaded area.
For example, missing power poles on power lines. I don't "fix" those
because the validator is just looking at a node without a power pole. Often
their isn't a pole at that location according to the imagery.

Best,
Clifford

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Dave F via talk]

Oh Good Lord, that's dangerous.

'Everywhere' in the 'Where' option accumulates more warnings (1000+) as 
you pan around

Even JOSM doesn't go that far.

DaveF

On 28/05/2019 19:17, Markus wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 19:56, Dave F via talk  wrote:

I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds respectively.
I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass edit
ability?

Yes, in the issues pane on the right side there are options to check
"Everything" and to "Fix All". "Fix All" automatically does changes
without informing you. In a densely populated area it's easy to change
200+ elements with just one mouse click.

As i wrote in the other thread (Re: Remove validation rule asking to
add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform) this
violates the Automated Edits code of conduct.

Regards

Markus



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[GeDeOn .]

Well...

My feeling is there is no tunnel there. Even when the under-passage is quite 
long in regard with the width.

Could the railway bridge (at the 2nd link) be considered a viaduct ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaduct

Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

 Message d'origine 
De : joost schouppe 
Date : 28/05/19 12:28 (GMT+01:00)
À : OpenStreetMap Belgium 
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

Hmm, how about this case:

https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054=4.035847194701205=17=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ=photo=0.5005982815044207=0.34925403860156434=0

It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks like 
a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge again :) 
?

Joost Schouppe

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

Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 21:18 Uhr schrieb Burkhard Burau <
b.bu...@t-online.de>:

> Mir ist klar, dass OSM kein historisches GIS sein kann, aber vielleicht
> eine z. T. zweisprachige Karte.
>
>

ja, mehrsprachige Karten kann man damit wunderbar machen.



> Was würde denn passieren, wenn ich bei einen heute polnischen Ort im OSM,
> z. B. mit "name:de=..." einen früheren deutschen Ortsnamen ergänzen würde.
> Wäre der dann automatisch im "deutschen OSM"?



ja genau. OSM ja eine Datenbank, und jeder der will könnte damit Karten in
den Sprachen die es dort gibt erstellen, und osm.de macht das halt mit
name:de.

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

Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Burkhard Burau]

Hallo Martin und hallo Martin, :-)

Danke für Eure schnellen und ausführlichen E-Mails.

Das GOV ist aus meiner Sicht gut, nur leider "nur" eine Datenbank, welche auf 
einer OSM-Karte die Lage einzelner, historischer Orte anzeigt.
Deshalb begeistert mich die Darstellung nicht und kann eine zweisprachige Karte 
nicht ersetzen. Würde man in der Danziger Gegend noch die kaschubischen 
Ortsnamen ergänzen, gäbe es sogar dreisprachige Ortsbezeichnungen. Teilweise 
sind diese kaschubischen Ortsnamen auch offiziell (z. B. als Zweitname an den 
Ortsschildern zu finden). Die slawischen Kaschuben sind eine nationale 
Minderheit in Polen.
Als brauchbar finde ich die analogen zweisprachigen Karten des Hoefer-Verlag 
(https://www.hoeferverlag.de) von Ost-Mitteleuropa, nur sind die nur in 
Papierform erhältlich.
Schön sind auch die Karten von Fritz Schulz 
(http://www.westpreussen.de/cms/ct/ortsverzeichnis/landkarte.php?karte=G4.jpg) 
von den ehemaligen Ostgebieten (mit Kirchspielangaben). Nur eben auch nur als 
pdf-Datei oder in Papierform erhältlich und zudem nur mit den deutschen Namen.
Mir ist klar, dass OSM kein historisches GIS sein kann, aber vielleicht eine z. 
T. zweisprachige Karte.

Was würde denn passieren, wenn ich bei einen heute polnischen Ort im OSM, z. B. 
mit "name:de=..." einen früheren deutschen Ortsnamen ergänzen würde. Wäre der 
dann automatisch im "deutschen OSM"?

Sorry, wieder so 'ne Greenhorn-Frage. :-) 
  
Schönen Abend und viele Grüße

Burkhard


Burkhard Burau
Heinrich-Lübke-Str. 29, 51375 Leverkusen, Deutschland/Germany
Telefon: 0214 - 734 62 60
Handy: 0151 - 70 14 60 97
E-Mail: b.bu...@t-online.de


-Original-Nachricht-
Betreff: Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen
Datum: 2019-05-28T20:06:56+0200
Von: "Martin Trautmann" 
An: "Openstreetmap allgemeines in Deutsch" , "Martin 
Koppenhoefer" 



Am 28. Mai 2019 19:51:12 MESZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
:
>Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:34 Uhr schrieb Martin Trautmann
>:
>
>>
>>
>> Frühere Namen gehören IMHO nicht in die OSM, sondern eher in die GOV:
>> 
>>
>
>
>jedenfalls fehlt denen mein Beispiel Lyon auch noch (auf deutsch).
>Kann man die Daten auch runterladen, und welche Lizenz benutzen die?

Es gibt als Auszug die MiniGOV. CC by SA oder so,  steht dabei

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 28.05.19 um 20:28 schrieb Simon Poole:
> The times in the changeset do not reflect the length of the associated 
> editing session except if the changeset was opened on purpose at the 
> beginning which IMHO no editor does.

A better method to guess the length of the editing session is to look
when the previous changeset was uploaded. (It assumes that the human
editing OSM does not have to open editing sessions in parallel)

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[Yannick]

Le 28/05/2019 à 20:59, Yannick a écrit :
> Le 28/05/2019 à 19:14, marc marc a écrit :
>> Le 28.05.19 à 19:05, Yannick a écrit :
>>> Le 28/05/2019 à 18:32, marc marc a écrit :
>>> Le logiciel Ancestris utilise OSM pour visualiser ses données.
>>
>> ha ouf, j'avais cru qu'il y avait un appel à l'api édition
>> pour se géolocaliser
>>
>>> Normalement on ne télécharge que le fond de carte à la demande. 
>>> Les IP sont celles des utilisateurs.
>>
>> Le plus probable c'est le manque d'user-agent non générique
>> ou l'utilisation de referer bidon "pour remplir"
>> C'est un des sujets le plus fréquent dans la salve de ban
>> que j'ai vu passé hier.
>>
>> Cordialement,
>> Marc
> 
> Bonsoir,
> 
> Le code actuel ne mets aucun user-agent ni aucune mention de la source.
> C'est effectivement à corriger.
> Cela va être fait.

Re,

Ce sera corriger lors de la prochaine MAJ de demain matin
De même que l'attribution DANS le logiciel, pour le site attendre un peu

Amitiés

-- 
Yannick VOYEAUD
Nul n'a droit au superflu tant que chacun n'a pas son nécessaire
(Camille JOUFFRAY 1841-1924, maire de Vienne)
http://www.voyeaud.org
Créateur CimGenWeb: http://www.francegenweb.org/cimgenweb/
Journées du Logiciel Libre: http://jdll.org
Généalogie en liberté avec Ancestris http://www.ancestris.org




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[Yannick]

Le 28/05/2019 à 19:14, marc marc a écrit :
> Le 28.05.19 à 19:05, Yannick a écrit :
>> Le 28/05/2019 à 18:32, marc marc a écrit :
>> Le logiciel Ancestris utilise OSM pour visualiser ses données.
> 
> ha ouf, j'avais cru qu'il y avait un appel à l'api édition
> pour se géolocaliser
> 
>> Normalement on ne télécharge que le fond de carte à la demande. 
>> Les IP sont celles des utilisateurs.
> 
> Le plus probable c'est le manque d'user-agent non générique
> ou l'utilisation de referer bidon "pour remplir"
> C'est un des sujets le plus fréquent dans la salve de ban
> que j'ai vu passé hier.
> 
> Cordialement,
> Marc

Bonsoir,

Le code actuel ne mets aucun user-agent ni aucune mention de la source.
C'est effectivement à corriger.
Cela va être fait.
Par contre, Ancestris utilise une vieille librairie (Swingx) pour
afficher la carte et il se pourrait que l'on doivent changer de
librairie pour pouvoir tout corriger.

Amitiés

-- 
Yannick VOYEAUD
Nul n'a droit au superflu tant que chacun n'a pas son nécessaire
(Camille JOUFFRAY 1841-1924, maire de Vienne)
http://www.voyeaud.org
Créateur CimGenWeb: http://www.francegenweb.org/cimgenweb/
Journées du Logiciel Libre: http://jdll.org
Généalogie en liberté avec Ancestris http://www.ancestris.org




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Markus]

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 16:48, Jo  wrote:
>
> This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as 
> usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.

OT: I haven't forgotten that topic, i'm just a bit too busy right now
(private and on OSM). I'll resume the discussion soon.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Simon Poole]

The times in the changeset do not reflect the length of the associated editing 
session except if the changeset was opened on purpose at the beginning which 
IMHO no editor does.

Am 28. Mai 2019 19:53:22 MESZ schrieb Dave F via talk :
>I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds respectively.
>I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass
>edit 
>ability?
>
>   I don't see asking users to split the changesets as a solution to 
>what is the clear problem of mass adding/amending tags to 
>unknown/undocumented ones.
>
>DaveF
>
>
>On 28/05/2019 16:13, Jmapb wrote:
>> See yesterday's changesets:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676813 (
>> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676813 )
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676888 (
>> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676888 )
>>
>> I believe this is just a casual user browsing around in iD and making
>> the suggested changes it advises -- to about 1000 objects. These
>giant
>> changesets are nearly impossible to review. My fear here is that iD's
>> new validator will make QA extremely challenging in dense areas.
>>
>> Scrolling through the tag additions, these changesets look almost
>> identical to the behavior of a bot... or rather like 6 or 7 bots
>> operating at once. If they *had* been made by a bot that was
>following
>> the mechanical edit guidelines, they could be comprehended and
>reviewed.
>> But the various tagging changes are all mixed up together in a single
>> changeset, along with whatever the mapper reidpelton's *actual*
>changes
>> were -- if any.
>>
>> So how do I even begin to do QA on this? I don't see any options
>other
>> than 1) mass-revert or 2) skip review of all large changesets that
>> appear to be triggered by iD validation. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 20:00 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:56 Uhr schrieb Dave F via talk <
> talk@openstreetmap.org>:
> > I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds
> > respectively.
> > 
> > I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass
> > edit 
> > 
> > ability?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >I don't see asking users to split the changesets as a solution
> > to 
> > 
> > what is the clear problem of mass adding/amending tags to 
> > 
> > unknown/undocumented ones.
> 
> 
> 
> indeed, I see no way to judge whether the iD suggestion to change
> objects from crossing=zebra to crossing=marked makes sense, because
> there is no documentation of crossing=marked. Going by the words,
> probably any zebra crossing can be seen as a marked crossing so it
> may not be introducing errors, just reducing specificity/detail.
> 
Just had a play with iD in my local High Street. 

First edit was a minor one to tidy up a spurious line, iD made no
attempt to change any other objects.

Second edit was to add a tactile paving tag to one of the zebra
crossings, it warned me that a marked crossing has outdated tags and
wanted to loose valuable information. which I declined but it is easy
to see how an inexperienced mapper could be coerced into making such a
change.

As you say marked is undocumented, and zebra is documented.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Andrew Hain]

Just out of idle curiosity, do we know of any data consumers that understand 
crossing=marked?

--
Andrew

From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: 28 May 2019 19:00
To: Dave F
Cc: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC



Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:56 Uhr schrieb Dave F via talk 
mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>>:
I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds respectively.
I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass edit
ability?

   I don't see asking users to split the changesets as a solution to
what is the clear problem of mass adding/amending tags to
unknown/undocumented ones.



indeed, I see no way to judge whether the iD suggestion to change objects from 
crossing=zebra to crossing=marked makes sense, because there is no 
documentation of crossing=marked. Going by the words, probably any zebra 
crossing can be seen as a marked crossing so it may not be introducing errors, 
just reducing specificity/detail.

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

Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Martin Trautmann]

Am 28. Mai 2019 19:51:12 MESZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
:
>Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:34 Uhr schrieb Martin Trautmann
>:
>
>>
>>
>> Frühere Namen gehören IMHO nicht in die OSM, sondern eher in die GOV:
>> 
>>
>
>
>jedenfalls fehlt denen mein Beispiel Lyon auch noch (auf deutsch).
>Kann man die Daten auch runterladen, und welche Lizenz benutzen die?

Es gibt als Auszug die MiniGOV. CC by SA oder so,  steht dabei

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:56 Uhr schrieb Dave F via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org>:

> I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds respectively.
> I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass edit
> ability?
>
>I don't see asking users to split the changesets as a solution to
> what is the clear problem of mass adding/amending tags to
> unknown/undocumented ones.




indeed, I see no way to judge whether the iD suggestion to change objects
from crossing=zebra to crossing=marked makes sense, because there is no
documentation of crossing=marked. Going by the words, probably any zebra
crossing can be seen as a marked crossing so it may not be introducing
errors, just reducing specificity/detail.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Dave F via talk]

I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds respectively.
I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass edit 
ability?


  I don't see asking users to split the changesets as a solution to 
what is the clear problem of mass adding/amending tags to 
unknown/undocumented ones.


DaveF


On 28/05/2019 16:13, Jmapb wrote:

See yesterday's changesets:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676813 (
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676813 )
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676888 (
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676888 )

I believe this is just a casual user browsing around in iD and making
the suggested changes it advises -- to about 1000 objects. These giant
changesets are nearly impossible to review. My fear here is that iD's
new validator will make QA extremely challenging in dense areas.

Scrolling through the tag additions, these changesets look almost
identical to the behavior of a bot... or rather like 6 or 7 bots
operating at once. If they *had* been made by a bot that was following
the mechanical edit guidelines, they could be comprehended and reviewed.
But the various tagging changes are all mixed up together in a single
changeset, along with whatever the mapper reidpelton's *actual* changes
were -- if any.

So how do I even begin to do QA on this? I don't see any options other
than 1) mass-revert or 2) skip review of all large changesets that
appear to be triggered by iD validation. Any other suggestions?

Jason


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



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

Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:34 Uhr schrieb Martin Trautmann :

>
>
> Frühere Namen gehören IMHO nicht in die OSM, sondern eher in die GOV:
> 
>


jedenfalls fehlt denen mein Beispiel Lyon auch noch (auf deutsch).
Kann man die Daten auch runterladen, und welche Lizenz benutzen die?

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-Talk-Fr] Extinction de l'éclairage public

[Paul Desgranges]

Le 28/05/2019 à 19:25, Nicolas Bétheuil a écrit :

Bonjour,

Avez-vous déjà référencé des villes / communes / village qui éteignent 
l'éclairage public durant la nuit ?

Quels tags utiliseriez vous ?

Bon, en fait, en regardant un peu mieux dans le wiki et tag info j'ai 
trouvé ça

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/operating_times#map
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:lit

Trop embryonnaire sûrement pour être pertinent.
J'avais entamé une discussion sur le sujet qui avait donné lieu à 
quelques commentaires

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:lit#For_town_for_cities_with_lighting_plans_to_reduce_light_pollution
Il faudrait repartir de là éventuellement...
L'idéal serait d'obtenir l'ouverture des données de l'ANPCEN, et ceci a 
déjà été discuté sur cette liste à l'époque ...
Il y a aussi ceci 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=extinction+%C3%A9clairage+public=Special%3ASearch=Go=1=1=1=1=1=1

Paul


Ce serait en s'inspirant de ça https://www.anpcen.fr/?id_rub=19 (mais 
pas assez doué pour trouver une carte / liste un peu à jour)
Et pour savoir où je peux partir en vacances avec mon télescope, pour 
adapter la lecture de la carte de l'avex 
https://www.avex-asso.org/dossiers/wordpress/fr_FR/la-pollution-lumineuse-light-pollution/cartes-de-pollution-europeenne-avex-2016?lang=fr_FR#-cartes-classiques


Bonne soirée

___
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-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Martin Trautmann]

On 19-05-28 19:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Hallo Burkhard,
> 
> wir haben zu diesem Thema in der Vergangenheit schon ein paarmal
> diskutiert, im Prinzip ist es immer gut und erwünscht, mitzumachen, d.h.
> weitere Daten einzutragen. Dadurch dass man deutsche Namen in
> anderssprachigen Gebieten in einen tag "name:de" steckt und nicht in den
> allgemeinen "name" tag, gibt es normalerweise kaum Konflikte.

Namen in unterschiedlichen Schreibweisen mit entsprechendem Namens-Tag
sind durchaus eine Bereicherung - wenn es sich um aktuelle Namen handelt.

> Allerdings gibt es ein paar Ausnahmen, z.B. die neu erfundenen Namen aus
> der Zeit der deutschen Besatzung. Diese nur sehr kurz in Verwendung
> gewesenen Namen, aus einem belasteten Kontext, sollte man nicht als
> allgemeine deutsche Namen eintragen (sofern ich mich erinnere war das die
> Übereinkunft). Wenn man das trotzdem eintragen will, was ja Sinn machen
> kann, dann war ein Vorschlag, dafür explizit die Gültigkeit im Schlüssel
> mitzuspeichern, z.B.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3A1933-1945
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3Ade%3A-1945
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3A1938-1945
> 
> wie Du an der Nutzung siehst ist das nichts, was sehr verbreitet ist
> (vielleicht gibt es noch eine andere Möglichkeit, die ich nicht kenne und
> die verbreiteter ist).

Frühere Namen gehören IMHO nicht in die OSM, sondern eher in die GOV:


Schönen Gruß
Martin



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

[OSM-talk-fr] Peut-être enfoncé-je des portes ouvertes

[Jacques Foucry]

Salut la compagnies,

Il y a un truc qui me chiffonne.

Il y a ici : 
https://opendata.paris.fr/explore/dataset/stationnement-voie-publique-emplacements/table/?disjunctive.regpri=GIG%2FGIC=19,48.85835,2.34721=jawg.streets

Vachement tout plein de belles infos parisiennes que l'on peut imaginer
fiable.

Sont-elles utilisées/recroisées dans OSM ?

Ils ont une belle carte en autres des places handi (je suis un peu
obsédé par la chose, convenant sont). Apparement le fond est OSM et ils
mettent par dessus leurs données.

Du coup, ça semble simple au profane que je suis.

Je voudrais votre avis sur ces données, leurs fiabilités, leurs
intégrations, etc.

Merci d'avance,
-- 
Jacques Foucry

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

Re: [Talk-it] highway=residential con access=permissive

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:00 Uhr schrieb canfe :

> Ciao Andrea,
> non penso possa essere motor_vehicle=private (Only with permission of the
> owner on an individual basis)
> per due ragioni:
> 1) il permesso non è su base individuale, ma per categorie (contadini,
> silvicoltori e pastori)
>


ma dovranno individualmente provare che hanno delle proprietà lì? Ci sono
abitazioni lungo queste vie? E ci possono andare in macchina gli ospiti di
queste persone? Allora sarebbe vehicle=destination.



> 2) non è il proprietario (owner) della strada a dare il permesso, ma è la
> Regione demandando ai Comuni a "toglierlo".
>


togliere e dare è la stessa cosa in questo contesto, no? Una strada che era
generalmente accessibile diventa limitata e di conseguenza serve il
permesso.



>
> Penso possa essere invece:
>
> access= agricultural -- "Only for agricultural traffic. Note a farmer's
> access track would be private rather than agricultural unless the track is
> open to any vehicle used for agricultural purposes."
>


+1, in realtà vehicle=agricultural, altrimenti escludi anche i pedoni.




>
> oppure
>
> access= forestry -- "Only for forestry traffic."
>


se vogliamo fare questa distinzione, anche vehicle=agricultural;forestry è
abbstanza comune:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/motor_vehicle=agricultural%3Bforestry




>
> Altrimenti pragmaticamente come dice @Alfredo Gattai:
> motor_vehicle=no perche' chi ha il permesso sa di averlo
>


no, perché "no" non vuol dire che si può andarci con un permesso, vuol dire
nessuno ci può andare. Se si vuole il permesso, il valore generico è
"private".

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[Yannick]

Le 28/05/2019 à 19:13, Topographe Fou a écrit :
> En effet, sur le site https://www.ancestris.org/index_fr.html on voit des 
> captures écrans avec des cartes ayant le même style que le fond de carte 
> osm.org et, à moins que mes yeux ne me jouent des tours, pas de mention 
> source osm.
> 
> Mais je n'ai pas ce logiciel pour voir les requêtes HTTP qu'il fait. Cela 
> peut être vers OSM ou pas.
> 
> Reste l'absence de mention qui elle est un minimum vue la taille de la carte, 
> même entre gens du libre.
> 
> Cordialement,
> 
> LeTopographeFou

Re,

Je vais relayer cet aspect des choses que je n'avait pas remarqué. De
mémoire dans le logiciel cela y est bien mais dès que les choses seront
revenus je ferais un contrôle.

Amitiés

-- 
Yannick VOYEAUD
Nul n'a droit au superflu tant que chacun n'a pas son nécessaire
(Camille JOUFFRAY 1841-1924, maire de Vienne)
http://www.voyeaud.org
Créateur CimGenWeb: http://www.francegenweb.org/cimgenweb/
Journées du Logiciel Libre: http://jdll.org
Généalogie en liberté avec Ancestris http://www.ancestris.org




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-Talk-Fr] Extinction de l'éclairage public

[Nicolas Bétheuil]

Bonjour,

Avez-vous déjà référencé des villes / communes / village qui éteignent
l'éclairage public durant la nuit ?
Quels tags utiliseriez vous ?

Bon, en fait, en regardant un peu mieux dans le wiki et tag info j'ai
trouvé ça
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/operating_times#map
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:lit

Trop embryonnaire sûrement pour être pertinent.

Ce serait en s'inspirant de ça https://www.anpcen.fr/?id_rub=19 (mais pas
assez doué pour trouver une carte / liste un peu à jour)
Et pour savoir où je peux partir en vacances avec mon télescope, pour
adapter la lecture de la carte de l'avex
https://www.avex-asso.org/dossiers/wordpress/fr_FR/la-pollution-lumineuse-light-pollution/cartes-de-pollution-europeenne-avex-2016?lang=fr_FR#-cartes-classiques

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[marc marc]

Le 28.05.19 à 19:05, Yannick a écrit :
> Le 28/05/2019 à 18:32, marc marc a écrit :
> Le logiciel Ancestris utilise OSM pour visualiser ses données.

ha ouf, j'avais cru qu'il y avait un appel à l'api édition
pour se géolocaliser

> Normalement on ne télécharge que le fond de carte à la demande. 
> Les IP sont celles des utilisateurs.

Le plus probable c'est le manque d'user-agent non générique
ou l'utilisation de referer bidon "pour remplir"
C'est un des sujets le plus fréquent dans la salve de ban
que j'ai vu passé hier.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[Topographe Fou]

En effet, sur le site https://www.ancestris.org/index_fr.html on voit des 
captures écrans avec des cartes ayant le même style que le fond de carte 
osm.org et, à moins que mes yeux ne me jouent des tours, pas de mention source 
osm.

Mais je n'ai pas ce logiciel pour voir les requêtes HTTP qu'il fait. Cela peut 
être vers OSM ou pas.

Reste l'absence de mention qui elle est un minimum vue la taille de la carte, 
même entre gens du libre.

Cordialement,

LeTopographeFou


  Message original  



De: marc_marc_...@hotmail.com
Envoyé: 28 mai 2019 6:33 PM
À: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
Répondre à: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
Objet: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion


Bonsoir,

Le 28.05.19 à 17:30, Yannick a écrit :
> Y a-t-il eut un changement important sur les serveurs OSM hier?

osm.org ? j'ai vu passé une salve de ban anti-abus

> En effet Ancestris qui fait appel à OSM pour sa géolocalisation
> des données ne peut plus accéder.

heu... j'ai peur de comprendre
qlq utilise l'api pour autre chose que la contribution ?
tu peux détailler un peu + ?

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

Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Hallo Burkhard,

wir haben zu diesem Thema in der Vergangenheit schon ein paarmal
diskutiert, im Prinzip ist es immer gut und erwünscht, mitzumachen, d.h.
weitere Daten einzutragen. Dadurch dass man deutsche Namen in
anderssprachigen Gebieten in einen tag "name:de" steckt und nicht in den
allgemeinen "name" tag, gibt es normalerweise kaum Konflikte.

Allerdings gibt es ein paar Ausnahmen, z.B. die neu erfundenen Namen aus
der Zeit der deutschen Besatzung. Diese nur sehr kurz in Verwendung
gewesenen Namen, aus einem belasteten Kontext, sollte man nicht als
allgemeine deutsche Namen eintragen (sofern ich mich erinnere war das die
Übereinkunft). Wenn man das trotzdem eintragen will, was ja Sinn machen
kann, dann war ein Vorschlag, dafür explizit die Gültigkeit im Schlüssel
mitzuspeichern, z.B.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3A1933-1945
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3Ade%3A-1945
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3A1938-1945

wie Du an der Nutzung siehst ist das nichts, was sehr verbreitet ist
(vielleicht gibt es noch eine andere Möglichkeit, die ich nicht kenne und
die verbreiteter ist).

Was auch kritisch gesehen wurde sind ehemals gebräuchliche deutsche Namen,
wo auf deutsch mittlerweile ein anderer Name gebräuchlich ist, z.B.
"Leyden" für "Lyon", als name:de einzutragen.
Ggf. könnte man da den tag "old_name:de" verwenden, der ist auch über
10.000 mal in Benutzung:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3Ade

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

Re: [Talk-it] geologia,

[Nogaro]

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: 28 May 2019 18:34
To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] geologia,

io non ero sicuro se fosse corretto, ci sono alcuni casi dove 
natural=cave_entrance è stato modificato in sinkhole. 

Secondo il wiki, per mantenere la doppia natura si può usare anche:

natural=cave_entrance + sinkhole=pit

Ciao,
Alberto


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[Yannick]

Le 28/05/2019 à 18:32, marc marc a écrit :
> Bonsoir,
> 
> Le 28.05.19 à 17:30, Yannick a écrit :
>> Y a-t-il eut un changement important sur les serveurs OSM hier?
> 
> osm.org ? j'ai vu passé une salve de ban anti-abus
> 
>> En effet Ancestris qui fait appel à OSM pour sa géolocalisation 
>> des données ne peut plus accéder.
> 
> heu... j'ai peur de comprendre
> qlq utilise l'api pour autre chose que la contribution ?
> tu peux détailler un peu + ?
> 
> Cordialement,
> Marc

Bonsoir,

Le logiciel Ancestris utilise OSM pour visualiser ses données.
Normalement on ne télécharge que le fond de carte à la demande. Les IP
sont celles des utilisateurs.

J'ai demandé plus d'explications sur ce qui est fait réellement car je
ne suis pas codeur. Donc à suivre.

Amitiés

-- 
Yannick VOYEAUD
Nul n'a droit au superflu tant que chacun n'a pas son nécessaire
(Camille JOUFFRAY 1841-1924, maire de Vienne)
http://www.voyeaud.org
Créateur CimGenWeb: http://www.francegenweb.org/cimgenweb/
Journées du Logiciel Libre: http://jdll.org
Généalogie en liberté avec Ancestris http://www.ancestris.org




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it] highway=residential con access=permissive

[canfe]

Ciao Andrea,
non penso possa essere motor_vehicle=private (Only with permission of the
owner on an individual basis)
per due ragioni:
1) il permesso non è su base individuale, ma per categorie (contadini,
silvicoltori e pastori)
2) non è il proprietario (owner) della strada a dare il permesso, ma è la
Regione demandando ai Comuni a "toglierlo".

Penso possa essere invece:

access= agricultural -- "Only for agricultural traffic. Note a farmer's
access track would be private rather than agricultural unless the track is
open to any vehicle used for agricultural purposes."

oppure

access= forestry -- "Only for forestry traffic."

come da https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Altrimenti pragmaticamente come dice @Alfredo Gattai:
motor_vehicle=no perche' chi ha il permesso sa di averlo

PS: forse sarebbe meglio ricominciare la discussione con un post nuovo ad
hoc??
PPSS: come si tagga qualcuno in modo che legga un post come questo a cui ha
partecipato?

Ferruccio Cantone (canfe)



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

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

[Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Burkhard Burau]

Hallo zusammen,
 
mein Name ist Burkhard Burau aus Leverkusen und ich habe mich erst gestern 
bei OSM angemeldet :-).
Ich bin 54 Jahre alt, von Beruf Stadtplaner und engagierter 
Familienforscher.
Meine Vorfahren stammen aus Westpreußen, was im Kern ungefähr der heutigen 
polnischen "Woiwodschaft Pomorze" entspricht.
 
Nun habe ich fasziniert festgestellt, das dort im "deutschen OSM" (
https://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html
 ) neben Gdansk auch die deutsche 
Bezeichnung Danzig steht und sogar kleine Orte wie Kadyny/Kadienen 
(nördlich von Elblag/Elbing) zweisprachig - auch mit ihrem historischen 
deutschen Namen - bezeichnet sind.
Diese zweisprachigen Ortsbezeichnungen sind nicht nur für die 
Familienforschung interessant, sondern z. B. auch für 
geschichtsinteressierte Reisende oder ebensolche polnischen Bewohner.
 
Ist es aus Eurer Sicht sinnvoll, weitere deutsche Ortsnamen aufzunehmen?
Ich könnte mir vorstellen, weitere Namen zum Beispiel aus den Heimatkreisen 
meiner Eltern (Danziger Höhe und Schlochau) einzutragen. Ich möchte damit 
aber keinen Unmut, z. B. bei polnischen Nutzern oder Mappern verursachen. 
Im internationalen OSM fehlen diese zweisprachigen Ortsnamen, was ich wegen 
der Internationalität und Übersichtlichkeit gut finde. Ich selber würde für 
mich aber lieber eine zweisprachige OSM-Version benutzen.
 
Also, wie seht Ihr das?
 
Dann hätte ich noch Fragen zu dem "wie".
Bei Skarszewy/Schöneck in Westpreussen, Cadyny/Kadienen etc. habe ich 
gesehen, dass dies unter "Mehrsprachiger Namen" und "Deutsch" verzeichnet 
wurde.
Alternativ wäre sicher auch die Eintragung "name:de = ..." oder "old_name = 
..." möglich.
Was schlagt Ihr vor?
 
Kann mir jemand sagen, wie die Ergänzung der deutschsprachigen Namen am 
einfachsten zu bewerkstelligen ist? Im Browser oder mit JOSM? Kann das nur 
händisch vorgenommen werden, oder ginge auch der Import von einer 
Datenbank?
 
Ihr merkt, ich bin ein echtes "Greenhorn" :-)! 
Entschuldigt deshalb meine vielen Fragen.
 
Als Bezugszeitraum für die deutschen Ortsbezeichnungen werden in 
Familienforscherkreisen für Westpreußen die Ortsnamen von 1910 verwendet. 
Denn nach dem ersten Weltkrieg (1914-1918) kam es zu territorialen 
Veränderungen. So wurde der mittlere Streifen polnisch, die westlichen und 
östlichen Ränder blieben beim damaligen Deutschen Reich und das Gebiet um 
Danzig bildete mit der "Freien Stadt Danzig" ein eigenes Territorium.   
In der Nazizeit kam es zu Umbenennungen insbesondere von polnisch 
klingenden Ortsnamen, die sollen hier nicht auftauchen. Auch möchte ich 
mich hier klar von irgendwelchen revanchistischen Gedanken distanzieren.
Mir geht es allein, um historische Informationen, wozu z. B. später auch 
andere Informationen, wie das Verorten von früheren, deutschen Friedhöfen 
gehören könnte.
 
So, nun bin ich gespannt, ob das überhaupt Jemanden interessiert und was 
Ihr für Meinungen oder Ratschläge habt.
 
Viele Grüße
 
Burkhard
 
 

Burkhard Burau
Heinrich-Lübke-Str. 29, 51375 Leverkusen, Deutschland/Germany
Telefon: 0214 - 734 62 60
Handy: 0151 - 70 14 60 97
E-Mail: b.bu...@t-online.de 
 
 

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Marc Gemis]

This is the place:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(sorry no Mapillary images yet).

Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel
under the E34/A11.

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> I think there is a tunnel under  the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate.  There 
> used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they created an 
> underground passage for it.
>
> M
>
> Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard :
>>
>> @joost schouppe  To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same structure 
>> as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars
>>
>> A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and 
>> consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel 
>> if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put 
>> back the earth on top ! ;-)
>>
>> I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or 
>> motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground 
>> or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we 
>> classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone 
>> quoted from wikipedia.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Jmapb]

On 5/28/2019 12:25 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


28 May 2019, 17:13 by jm...@gmx.com:

Any other suggestions?

Suggest user to split edits into smaller chunks.


Yes that would be far preferable, and I did message this user. That
doesn't address the immediate question of how to attempt QA on these two
changesets. And the larger problem of other users making similar
changesets, in this city and thousands of other densely mapped places on
the planet, is still looming.

I can (and do) plead with people to keep changesets small, but the
nature of the process has changed. Before, a casual making hundreds of
changes in a single changeset was pretty rare, because they'd actually
have to *make* hundreds of changes. Now they just have to agree to them
-- and as far as they can tell they're being asked to do so by OSM
itself, so it's highly likely they will.

(And sidebar -- I like the idea of the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice page including some
advice about keeping changsets to a manageable size -- both number of
changes and geographic area. Something to point to when trying to make
the case for smaller changesets.)

J

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Marc Gemis]

I think there is a tunnel under  the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate.
There used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they
created an underground passage for it.

M

Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard :

> @joost schouppe   To me that's indeed a bridge,
> as you see the same structure as on the motorway bridges : a platform
> supported by pillars
>
> A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and
> consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway
> tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel
> and put back the earth on top ! ;-)
>
> I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or
> motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground
> or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we
> classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone
> quoted from wikipedia.
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-it] geologia,

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 17:55 Uhr schrieb Ivo Reano :

> La pagina wiki descrive il tag come "A natural depression or hole in the
> surface topography"
> Nei sistemi carsici la dolina e l'inghiottitoio si distinguono perchè nel
> secondo la cavità di ingresso dell'acqua è visibile. A volte la dolina può
> essere anche zona sorgiva (!)
>
> Quindi secondo me, la taggatura è corretta.
> Naturalmente la mia idea è di mantenere "sempllice" la taggatura.
> Per altri potrebbe essere necessario "creare" ogni possibile distinzione
> tra tutte le definizioni dei sistemi carsici!
> Ma si creerebbe confusione nei non esperti...
>


io non ero sicuro se fosse corretto, ci sono alcuni casi dove
natural=cave_entrance è stato modificato in sinkhole. Visto la
distribuzione e tematica ristretta direi che in ogni caso si tratta di un
edit semimanuale (al meno che non abbia veramente analizzato il caso
individuale), e sarebbe stato meglio se fosse stato discusso prima.
Comunque "stira" una seria di cose e le mette tutte nella stessa categoria.
Potrebbe forse anche mancare ancora un tag o subtag specifico per
inghiottitoio

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[marc marc]

Bonsoir,

Le 28.05.19 à 17:30, Yannick a écrit :
> Y a-t-il eut un changement important sur les serveurs OSM hier?

osm.org ? j'ai vu passé une salve de ban anti-abus

> En effet Ancestris qui fait appel à OSM pour sa géolocalisation 
> des données ne peut plus accéder.

heu... j'ai peur de comprendre
qlq utilise l'api pour autre chose que la contribution ?
tu peux détailler un peu + ?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[mmd]

Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.

That's far too complicated. What you probably want are (mandatory)
feature toggles for every major feature as part of the iD codebase,
allowing the osm.org website repo to selectively enable/disable
controversial features in case this is really needed.

It's not beautiful but might help to establish a bit of a balances of
power without a need to have a dedicated patch team to fix up iD (which
won't work anyway).

-- 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 May 2019, 17:13 by jm...@gmx.com:

> Any other suggestions?
>
Suggest user to split edits into smaller chunks.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-transit] Adding highway=bus_stop to nodes with public transport=platform bus=yes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 May 2019, 16:24 by ja...@piorkowski.ca:

> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 07:24, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
>
>> In this bot edit:
>>
>> * Editing is limited to Poland
>> * Editing is limited to nodes with public_transport=platform bus=yes
>> * Nodes with nearby (within 250 meters) highway=bus_stop are ignored[1]
>> * Elements with highway tag are skipped
>> * To remaining highway=bus_stop is added
>>
>
> This seems like a good plan.
>
> I would maybe suggest checking if the platform is a member in a
> stop_area and if that stop_area already includes a highway=bus_stop.
> But I don't know how widely stop_area has been used in Poland.
>
I was unaware that such relation exists, thanks!
Based on my testing ( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jq1 
 ) my query structure
covers it by "Nodes with nearby (within 250 meters) highway=bus_stop are 
ignored"

>> I just noticed during writing a post to this thread about this bot edit that
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct#Document_and_discuss_your_plans
>> has
>> "and if your edit affects a specialist subject, such as oil rigs or public 
>> transport
>> which has its own list then you should also discuss your plans on that 
>> mailing list."
>> ...
>> PS What is the name of mailing list about oil rigs? I am unable to find it on
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
>>
>
> I guess you could ask the editor of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct=prev=1186355
> and > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct=next=1186548
>  
> 
>
Asked. Give age of the edit I am betting that mailing list existed but was 
closed since
that time.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Simon Poole]

Am 28. Mai 2019 17:44:25 MESZ schrieb Simon Poole :
>1st thing to do is to ask the napper to slow

 ... mapper :-)

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.

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

Re: [Talk-it] geologia,

[Ivo Reano]

La pagina wiki descrive il tag come "A natural depression or hole in the
surface topography"
Nei sistemi carsici la dolina e l'inghiottitoio si distinguono perchè nel
secondo la cavità di ingresso dell'acqua è visibile. A volte la dolina può
essere anche zona sorgiva (!)

Quindi secondo me, la taggatura è corretta.
Naturalmente la mia idea è di mantenere "sempllice" la taggatura.
Per altri potrebbe essere necessario "creare" ogni possibile distinzione
tra tutte le definizioni dei sistemi carsici!
Ma si creerebbe confusione nei non esperti...

Il giorno mar 28 mag 2019 alle ore 17:12 Damjan Gerl  ha
scritto:

> Si, per me sono due cose differenti. Una dolina potrebbe anche avere un
> inghiottitoio, ma sono comunque due cose separate.
>
> Damjan
>
> -- Original Header ---
>
> From  : "Martin Koppenhoefer" dieterdre...@gmail.com
> To  : "openstreetmap list - italiano" talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> Cc  :
> Date  : Tue, 28 May 2019 17:06:27 +0200
> Subject : [Talk-it] geologia,
>
> > Ho trovato questo changeset, dove probabilmente ad ogni oggetto con
> > "Inghiottitoio" nel nome è stato assegnato il tag natural=sinkhole
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70674529
> >
> > Non mi intendo di geologia, ma da quanto ho letto, mi sembrano due cose
> > diverse?
> > Secondo wikipedia un sinkhole in italiano si chiama "Dolina carsica"
> >
> > Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa?
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolina_carsica
> > https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inghiottitoio
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Simon Poole]

1st thing to do is to ask the napper to slow down in a change set comment.

Am 28. Mai 2019 17:13:49 MESZ schrieb Jmapb :
>See yesterday's changesets:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676813 (
>https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676813 )
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676888 (
>https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676888 )
>
>I believe this is just a casual user browsing around in iD and making
>the suggested changes it advises -- to about 1000 objects. These giant
>changesets are nearly impossible to review. My fear here is that iD's
>new validator will make QA extremely challenging in dense areas.
>
>Scrolling through the tag additions, these changesets look almost
>identical to the behavior of a bot... or rather like 6 or 7 bots
>operating at once. If they *had* been made by a bot that was following
>the mechanical edit guidelines, they could be comprehended and
>reviewed.
>But the various tagging changes are all mixed up together in a single
>changeset, along with whatever the mapper reidpelton's *actual* changes
>were -- if any.
>
>So how do I even begin to do QA on this? I don't see any options other
>than 1) mass-revert or 2) skip review of all large changesets that
>appear to be triggered by iD validation. Any other suggestions?
>
>Jason
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk-fr] Problème de connexion

[Yannick]

Bonsoir,

Y a-t-il eut un changement important sur les serveurs OSM hier?
En effet Ancestris qui fait appel à OSM pour sa géolocalisation des
données ne peut plus accéder.

Amitiés

-- 
Yannick VOYEAUD
Nul n'a droit au superflu tant que chacun n'a pas son nécessaire
(Camille JOUFFRAY 1841-1924, maire de Vienne)
http://www.voyeaud.org
Créateur CimGenWeb: http://www.francegenweb.org/cimgenweb/
Journées du Logiciel Libre: http://jdll.org
Généalogie en liberté avec Ancestris http://www.ancestris.org




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Un dépliant tout neuf pour la communauté !

[Cédric Frayssinet]

Merci pour ce beau travail. Le dépliant est clair et aéré, je vais le
partager sur l'académie de Lyon.

Cédric

Le 28/05/2019 à 12:48, PanierAvide a écrit :
>
> Bonjour à tous,
>
> En début d'année, l'asso OSM France a lancé un projet pour la
> réalisation d'un dépliant papier à destination du grand public.
> L'objectif est de permettre aux communautés locales d'avoir un support
> prêt-à-l'emploi, travaillé pour être lisible et accessible au plus
> grand nombre. Ce support a été réalisé en collaboration avec deux
> prestataires sur Rennes (Esa  et L'Arbre à
> Com ), et s'est appuyé sur les échanges et
> retours des contributeurs qui ont participé aux discussions sur les
> listes et sur Loomio. La réalisation du dépliant s'est achevée il y a
> quelques semaines, et il est désormais disponible sur le wiki :
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_France/Support_Communication#Grand_public
>
> Les sources et versions PDF sont placées sous licence CC-By-SA 2.0, ce
> qui permettra de tenir le dépliant à jour dans les années à venir pour
> suivre les évolutions du projet OSM.
>
> Pour les participants du State of the Map, pas besoin d'en imprimer !
> Nous en mettrons à disposition pour que les groupes locaux aient un
> stock à ramener dans leurs régions.
>
> En espérant que ce support vous plaira, et saura convaincre les
> curieux que vous croiserez à utiliser et participer à OSM ;-)
>
> Cordialement.
>
> -- 
> Adrien P.
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr


-- 
Dégooglisé !  - Sociétaire Enercoop
, l'énergie militante

Sur Mastodon : @bristow...@framapiaf.org 

Promouvoir et soutenir le logiciel libre 

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

[OSM-talk-ie] Bing maps

[Noel Ballantyne]

Hello,

Is anyone having an issue with bing maps in JOSM.

the tiles are not loading, i get an Error Attribution is not loaded yet.

I have flushed tile cache. this happening on 2 machines.

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

[OSM-talk-fr] [pro] Ajout des données Rézopouce

[Vincent Bergeot]

Bonjour,

j'en ai discuté sur la liste transport mais pas ici :(

Rezopouce, l'autostop au quotidien (https://rezopouce.fr/), a fourni les 
données de ses arrêts dans le Seignanx (le sud-ouest des Landes).


Après avoir vérifié la cohérence (bord de route et en particulier 
croisement ou espace dégagé), ajouté dans Umap pour que des locaux (les 
gens de l'office de tourisme) les vérifient, j'ai ajouté les arrêts.


Ils se retrouvent ici : http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JpR

4 tags :

 * amenity=car_pooling
 * network=Rézopouce
 * ref=*
 * name=*

n'hésitez pas à faire des retours !

Bonne journée

--
Vincent Bergeot

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

[OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Jmapb]

See yesterday's changesets:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676813 (
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676813 )
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676888 (
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676888 )

I believe this is just a casual user browsing around in iD and making
the suggested changes it advises -- to about 1000 objects. These giant
changesets are nearly impossible to review. My fear here is that iD's
new validator will make QA extremely challenging in dense areas.

Scrolling through the tag additions, these changesets look almost
identical to the behavior of a bot... or rather like 6 or 7 bots
operating at once. If they *had* been made by a bot that was following
the mechanical edit guidelines, they could be comprehended and reviewed.
But the various tagging changes are all mixed up together in a single
changeset, along with whatever the mapper reidpelton's *actual* changes
were -- if any.

So how do I even begin to do QA on this? I don't see any options other
than 1) mass-revert or 2) skip review of all large changesets that
appear to be triggered by iD validation. Any other suggestions?

Jason


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

Re: [Talk-it] geologia,

[Damjan Gerl]

Si, per me sono due cose differenti. Una dolina potrebbe anche avere un 
inghiottitoio, ma sono comunque due cose separate.

Damjan

-- Original Header ---

From  : "Martin Koppenhoefer" dieterdre...@gmail.com
To  : "openstreetmap list - italiano" talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Cc  : 
Date  : Tue, 28 May 2019 17:06:27 +0200
Subject : [Talk-it] geologia,

> Ho trovato questo changeset, dove probabilmente ad ogni oggetto con
> "Inghiottitoio" nel nome è stato assegnato il tag natural=sinkhole
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70674529
> 
> Non mi intendo di geologia, ma da quanto ho letto, mi sembrano due cose
> diverse?
> Secondo wikipedia un sinkhole in italiano si chiama "Dolina carsica"
> 
> Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa?
> 
> Ciao,
> Martin
> 
> 
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolina_carsica
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inghiottitoio
> 

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

Re: [Talk-it] geologia,

[Gabriele via Talk-it]

Io sinkhole lo uso solo per le doline, che in realta' sono dei semplici 
avvallamenti particolari di alcune zona appunto carsiche. Non so pero' quale 
sia il tag giusto per inghiottitoio

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday 28 May 2019 17:06, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:

> Ho trovato questo changeset, dove probabilmente ad ogni oggetto con 
> "Inghiottitoio" nel nome è stato assegnato il tag natural=sinkhole
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70674529
>
> Non mi intendo di geologia, ma da quanto ho letto, mi sembrano due cose 
> diverse?
> Secondo wikipedia un sinkhole in italiano si chiama "Dolina carsica"
>
> Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa?
>
> Ciao,
> Martin
>
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolina_carsica
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inghiottitoio___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-it] geologia,

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Ho trovato questo changeset, dove probabilmente ad ogni oggetto con
"Inghiottitoio" nel nome è stato assegnato il tag natural=sinkhole

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70674529

Non mi intendo di geologia, ma da quanto ho letto, mi sembrano due cose
diverse?
Secondo wikipedia un sinkhole in italiano si chiama "Dolina carsica"

Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa?

Ciao,
Martin


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Adding highway=bus_stop to nodes with public transport=platform bus=yes

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 07:24, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> In this bot edit:
>
> * Editing is limited to Poland
> * Editing is limited to nodes with public_transport=platform bus=yes
> * Nodes with nearby (within 250 meters) highway=bus_stop are ignored[1]
> * Elements with highway tag are skipped
> * To remaining highway=bus_stop is added

This seems like a good plan.

I would maybe suggest checking if the platform is a member in a
stop_area and if that stop_area already includes a highway=bus_stop.
But I don't know how widely stop_area has been used in Poland.

> I just noticed during writing a post to this thread about this bot edit that
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct#Document_and_discuss_your_plans
> has
> "and if your edit affects a specialist subject, such as oil rigs or public 
> transport
> which has its own list then you should also discuss your plans on that 
> mailing list."
> ...
> PS What is the name of mailing list about oil rigs? I am unable to find it on
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Presumably that should be "a specialist subject which has its own
community such as a mailing list" or something.

I guess you could ask the editor of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct=prev=1186355
and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct=next=1186548

I did see editors focused on drawing pipelines (though I wonder about
verifiability sometimes) and there is a guideline for maritime stuff
like seamarks so I guess there might be a sub-community interested in
oil rigs somewhere.

--Jarek

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[john whelan]

I would support a forked version of iD as a default editor on the home page.

I think OpenStreetMap is mature and complex enough now to start using
techniques like change management which are used in the IT world to manage
change.  It is common practice in corporate IT.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:35 AM Frederik Ramm,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
> > As I see it we can choose between
>
> [...]
>
> > - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
> > commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
>
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
>
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
>
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.
>
> We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
> establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
> applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
> patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> (*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
> is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
> in pointing out that an apology is in order -
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
> the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
> maintainers" feature.
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-cu] name=WIFI_ETECSA

[José Daniel Rodríguez Morales]

Hi Frédéric

Yes, they are miss tagged. They are just public (but not free) wifi hot spots 
without any shop, the nationals know widely what " WIFI_ETECSA" is, but it can 
be confusing to other people. I have fixed many of them, but people (possibly 
not members of this list) keep tagging them like so. I think the reason is for 
making it to display in maps, as otherwise it wouldn't show unless you search 
specifically by tags I think. What do you suggest about this?

Bests,
Jose.


-Mensaje original-
De: Frédéric Rodrigo [mailto:fred.rodr...@gmail.com] 
Enviado el: lunes, 27 de mayo de 2019 4:54 pm
Para: talk-cu@openstreetmap.org
Asunto: [Talk-cu] name=WIFI_ETECSA

Hola,

Lo siento, pero voy a escribir en inglés.


I see many object like this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4975076826

internet_access = wlan
name = WIFI_ETECSA
name:es = wifi etecsa
shop = mobile_phone


I think many are miss tagged. Unless I'm wrong, there are not always shop but 
only wifi hot spot?
I think name:es = wifi etecsa should be removed.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:internet_access

Frédéric.



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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Lionel Giard]

@joost schouppe   To me that's indeed a bridge,
as you see the same structure as on the motorway bridges : a platform
supported by pillars

A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and
consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway
tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel
and put back the earth on top ! ;-)

I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or
motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground
or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we
classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone
quoted from wikipedia.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-transit] Adding highway=bus_stop to nodes with public transport=platform bus=yes

[Jo]

I think it's standard practice to add highway=bus_stop to nodes for bus
stops, as they won't render otherwise anyway.

I don't see parrticular need to ask for permission to add it, but if you
do, you have my vote to add it. I'm starting to have a tendency to move
away from public_transport=platform/bus=yes, but that's another story, of
course.

Polyglot

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:24 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> In Poland there are some bus stops mapped solely as public
> transport=platform bus=yes
> nodes, without highway=bus_stop.
>
> One of local mappers noticed this problem and asked for fixing the
> problem, what resulted in
> automatic edit proposal being accepted by a local community as it is
> considered preferable
> for bus stops to include standard highway=bus_stop, at least in Poland.
>
> In this bot edit:
>
> * Editing is limited to Poland
> * Editing is limited to nodes with public_transport=platform bus=yes
> * Nodes with nearby (within 250 meters) highway=bus_stop are ignored[1]
> * Elements with highway tag are skipped
> * To remaining highway=bus_stop is added
>
> [1] To handle cases like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4004954618#map=19/50.04537/19.85997
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1726904219#map=19/50.04537/19.85997
> In this case adding highway=bus_stop would not improve data quality
>
> Documentation page with more detail, including source code is at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/add_highway%3Dbus_stop_tag_where_only_public_transport%3Dplatform_bus%3Dyes_is_present_in_Poland
>
> I just noticed during writing a post to this thread about this bot edit
> that
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct#Document_and_discuss_your_plans
> has
> "and if your edit affects a specialist subject, such as oil rigs or public
> transport
> which has its own list then you should also discuss your plans on that
> mailing list."
>
> Unfortunately, bot edit was already started and made some modifications.
>
> I am sorry for not doing it before, I stopped script after noticing it and
> submitted this thread.
>
> PS What is the name of mailing list about oil rigs? I am unable to find it
> on
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
>
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Marc Gemis]

I doubt one had to dig something for the road to pass under the
railway. There is no "earth" between the road and the sky, only stuff
that humans created, like concrete, stones and asphalt. So a bridge
for me.
I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of material
do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde)
that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a tunnel.
(similar to the digging rule mentioned earlier).

m.

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:29 PM joost schouppe
 wrote:
>
> Hmm, how about this case:
>
> https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054=4.035847194701205=17=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ=photo=0.5005982815044207=0.34925403860156434=0
>
> It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks 
> like a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge 
> again :) ?
>
> Joost Schouppe
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

[Talk-transit] Adding highway=bus_stop to nodes with public transport=platform bus=yes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In Poland there are some bus stops mapped solely as public transport=platform 
bus=yes
nodes, without highway=bus_stop.

One of local mappers noticed this problem and asked for fixing the problem, 
what resulted in
automatic edit proposal being accepted by a local community as it is considered 
preferable
for bus stops to include standard highway=bus_stop, at least in Poland.

In this bot edit:

* Editing is limited to Poland
* Editing is limited to nodes with public_transport=platform bus=yes
* Nodes with nearby (within 250 meters) highway=bus_stop are ignored[1]* 
Elements with highway tag are skipped
* To remaining highway=bus_stop is added

[1] To handle cases like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4004954618#map=19/50.04537/19.85997 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1726904219#map=19/50.04537/19.85997 

In this case adding highway=bus_stop would not improve data quality

Documentation page with more detail, including source code is at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/add_highway%3Dbus_stop_tag_where_only_public_transport%3Dplatform_bus%3Dyes_is_present_in_Poland
 


I just noticed during writing a post to this thread about this bot edit that 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct#Document_and_discuss_your_plans
 

has
"and if your edit affects a specialist subject, such as oil rigs or public 
transport
which has its own list then you should also discuss your plans on that mailing 
list."

Unfortunately, bot edit was already started and made some modifications.

I am sorry for not doing it before, I stopped script after noticing it and 
submitted this thread.

PS What is the name of mailing list about oil rigs? I am unable to find it on
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Un dépliant tout neuf pour la communauté !

[PanierAvide]

Bonjour à tous,

En début d'année, l'asso OSM France a lancé un projet pour la 
réalisation d'un dépliant papier à destination du grand public. 
L'objectif est de permettre aux communautés locales d'avoir un support 
prêt-à-l'emploi, travaillé pour être lisible et accessible au plus grand 
nombre. Ce support a été réalisé en collaboration avec deux prestataires 
sur Rennes (Esa  et L'Arbre à Com 
), et s'est appuyé sur les échanges et retours 
des contributeurs qui ont participé aux discussions sur les listes et 
sur Loomio. La réalisation du dépliant s'est achevée il y a quelques 
semaines, et il est désormais disponible sur le wiki :


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_France/Support_Communication#Grand_public

Les sources et versions PDF sont placées sous licence CC-By-SA 2.0, ce 
qui permettra de tenir le dépliant à jour dans les années à venir pour 
suivre les évolutions du projet OSM.


Pour les participants du State of the Map, pas besoin d'en imprimer ! 
Nous en mettrons à disposition pour que les groupes locaux aient un 
stock à ramener dans leurs régions.


En espérant que ce support vous plaira, et saura convaincre les curieux 
que vous croiserez à utiliser et participer à OSM ;-)


Cordialement.

--
Adrien P.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[joost schouppe]

Hmm, how about this case:

https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054=4.035847194701205=17=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ=photo=0.5005982815044207=0.34925403860156434=0

It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks
like a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge
again :) ?

Joost Schouppe
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-it] Source sentiero

[Andreas Lattmann]

Ho cancellato sentiero ed aperto nuova nota dove indica l'inizio del sentiero 
raccomandando di non scopiazzare 

Questo è l'inizio del sentiero: 

https://theta360.com/s/c3G87ocRpGp9JjFX1o3dwFAS8?utm_medium=referral_source=app_theta_win

Andreas
--
I❤️ Software Libero.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Josm traduction du wiki : images

[Leni]

Je viens de m'apercevoir qu'il y avait en bas de page un bouton "Joindre un 
autre fichier" avec la possibilité de mettre une "Description du fichier 
(optionnelle)" et de "Remplacer toute pièce jointe existante avec le même nom" 
je vais essayer cette possibilité.
Cordialement
Leni 



 Message original 
De: Leni 
Envoyé: Sat May 25 21:23:41 GMT+02:00 2019
À: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
Sujet: Josm traduction du wiki : images

Bonjour.

Je suis en train de mettre à jour la traduction de la page 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Fr%3AHelp/Action/About

Les images sont par exemple : 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/attachment/wiki/Fr%3AHelp/Action/About/AboutRevision_screenshot.png

Dans l'édition de la page il est indiqué 
[[Image(AboutRevision_screenshot.png,500)]]

Dans l'aide,  il est écrit : "Il est possible d’accéder à l’image de la page de 
base en anglais (ou toute autre page). Pour y accéder, utilisez le nom de la 
page comme domaine et placez un deux-points devant le nom du fichier : 
[[Image(Translations/Wiki:diff.png)]]"

En fin de compte je ne sais pas du tout comment faire techniquement :
- où mettre l'image qui se trouve sur mon ordi ?
- placer une nouvelle image sur une page ?
- remplacer une image existante par une autre plus récente ?


Ps : J'ai créé un framapad 
"https://semestriel.framapad.org/p/josmwikitraduction; pour ne pas être deux à 
traduire la même page :

Cordialement et bon dimanche
Leni___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 May 2019, 10:32 by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> As I see it we can choose between
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
>> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
>>
>
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
>
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
>
I agree, it is perfectly fine to not spend time on researching what community
wants and judging what is the consensus (it is stressful, takes massive amount
of time and in general there is always an unhappy group and it is quite hard to
decide whatever one did it the right way and it n worse in cases when 
one also proposed/spearheaded solution that (s)he is now promoting etc etc).

But in the same way it is also perfectly fine to deploy forked iD version
or some other editor as default on the OSM homepage.


> (*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
> is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
> in pointing out that an apology is in order -
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
> the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
> maintainers" feature.
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
> As I see it we can choose between

[...]

> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
"default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.

It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
even for the community itself.

Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
(because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.

We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.

Bye
Frederik

(*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
in pointing out that an apology is in order -
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
maintainers" feature.

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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Simon Poole]

Am 27.05.2019 um 12:58 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> ..
> I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.  
I don't think I claimed to explore every possible sub-variant.
> I in particular see:
>
> * a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly 
> what is being released without creating and maintaining a complete 
> fork.

A fork is a fork is a fork. As the iD presets are relatively closely
tied to the way they are used in the app, making changes to them in
isolation over a longer period of time is going to be difficult, and
without cooperation from the devs IMHO pointless (and if we had that we
wouldn't be having this discussion). I quote an iD dev "Be aware that
the preset schema can change fairly often to suit the needs of iD."

> * a wide range of options for regulatory measures, not only on 
> the 'developer behaviour regulation' front (which i have serious 
> trouble with) but also on the technical level by requiring certain 
> modularization so things like presets or validation rules can be easily 
> replaced or disabled by deployments.

I didn't expand on what such rules could look like, clearly they could
be based on technical requirements, but that wouldn't be less invasive
than putting some behavioural norms in place.

In the end the real issue is that there are no actual consequences for
undesired behaviour, its not the first time this discussion has
happened, and it is just as with kids you let it slip through and the
next time they try a bit more, till you have a completely untenable
situation. Rolling back a couple of months of work implies that those
holding the purse strings (whoever they may be) didn't get what they
were paying for and that, perhaps, might get some attention.

Simon

PS: there seem to be at least a few other cases similar to the issue
mentioned in the title, just a bit less prominent, so the presets
probably should be fully vetted before (re-)deployment.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] Source sentiero

[Volker Schmidt]

Mi sono consultato con il CAI  centrale.
La way va rimossa:
1) mappatura da una sorgente cartacea che al di la della precisione
potrebbe anche avere dei diritti d'autore che in questo modo non vengono
rispettati
2) l'utente ha mappato senza esserci stato e senza citare fonti affidabili
come foto satellitari dove sia visibile il sentiero
3) il tag ref contiene la fonte e non il riferimento
L'utente kaitu ha visitato il posto di recente. Ha caricato tracce GPS e
foto Mapillary della zona, La foto Mapillary [3] fa vedere una cartello
(senza data) che fa vedere una mappa sentieri della zona, dove il sentiero
in questione non è presente.

Volker

[3] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Psw2S0YIoXy47_dSGAQlvA

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 22:37, Andreas Lattmann 
wrote:

> Buongiorno,
> Il source del seguente sentiero [1] è riferito a:
>
> Esino Lario Carta escursionistica sentieri e toponimi - CAI, ANA,
> Associazione Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus
>
> E su note:
>
> Va controllato il tracciato del sentiero con un gps
>
> È lecito il source utilizzato?
>
> Un escursionista ha aperto una nota [2] chiedendo la cancellazione
> definendo il sentiero "Ravano totale/traccia di merda, da levare.".
>
> Grazie
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294244973/history
> [2] Nota #1783134
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[ghia]

I don't think that, what was first, is always relevant. Your cycleway
'tunnel' is a bridge. A tunnel has to go in depth or under a lot of
other things (not a simple crossing). 

A bridge is in general less thick then the height of the passage. 

Or the height of a tunnel is less than half the level difference. 

Regards, 

Gerard 

Tim Couwelier schreef op 2019-05-28 09:28:

> I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here. 
> 
> As for how I try to decide: 
> Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this 
> one is at goes as the 'baselevel'. 
> Either a new road / railway / .. goes:
> OVER it, making that a bridge 
> UNDER it, making it a tunnel 
> AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL, making the existing road/path a bridge or tunnel based 
> on how that got adjusted.
> 
> That makes this a railway-bridge: 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9501557,3.1304248,3a,60y,255.18h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8dGdG1hKMYxX3JldKdTSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>  
> But this, just a bit further, and at the same level as the road shown in the 
> previous example, a tunnel for cyclists: 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9516067,3.1299799,3a,48.9y,281.94h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPooi08Nvz-feFB6XzaibnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> 
> Hope that makes sense, I personally feel it matches with how people tend to 
> label things. 
> 
> Op di 28 mei 2019 om 00:04 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet 
> : 
> 
> Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug, it's 
> not a tunnel.
> 
> I have another cool example, not from belgium though: 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste (in 
> winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on top). 
> 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet 
> 
> Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . : 
> 
> Hi Stijn and all  
> 
> In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in mountain, 
> under a river, ... 
> 
> Otherwise I would think of a viaduct. 
> 
> In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel. 
> 
> Just my 2 cents... 
> 
> Pierre 
> 
> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. 
> 
>  Message d'origine  
> De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be  
> Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00) 
> À : OpenStreetMap Belgium  
> Cc : Stijn Rombauts  
> Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an 
> embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 4. This one looks more like a bridge: 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 6. And if it gets shorter? 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 7. And this? 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a 
> bridge? Or above a tunnel? 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> 9. And if you turn around: 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>  
> 
> I am curious about your opinion... 
> But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How should 
> they be mapped? That's the question. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> StijnRR 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Lionel Giard]

I agree with the above answer that except #2, all are bridge.

One other method to identify a bridge is to check the structure (either
with a "tablier"/bridge deck which goes from one support to the next, or
with arch like one of the example...). There are typical bridge structure,
while most tunnel are just a concrete passage.

Le mar. 28 mai 2019 à 09:29, Tim Couwelier  a
écrit :

> I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here.
>
> As for how I try to decide:
> Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this
> one is at goes as the 'baselevel'.
> Either a new road / railway / .. goes:
> OVER it, making that a bridge
> UNDER it, making it a tunnel
> AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL, making the existing road/path a bridge or tunnel
> based on how that got adjusted.
>
> That makes this a railway-bridge:
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9501557,3.1304248,3a,60y,255.18h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8dGdG1hKMYxX3JldKdTSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> But this, just a bit further, and at the same level as the road shown in
> the previous example, a tunnel for cyclists:
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9516067,3.1299799,3a,48.9y,281.94h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPooi08Nvz-feFB6XzaibnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
> Hope that makes sense, I personally feel it matches with how people tend
> to label things.
>
>
>
>
>
> Op di 28 mei 2019 om 00:04 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet <
> pieterv...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug,
>> it's not a tunnel.
>>
>> I have another cool example, not from belgium though:
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste
>> (in winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on
>> top).
>>
>> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>> Pieter Vander Vennet
>>
>>
>> Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . :
>>
>>> Hi Stijn and all
>>>
>>> In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in
>>> mountain, under a river, ...
>>>
>>> Otherwise I would think of a viaduct.
>>>
>>> In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents...
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>>>
>>>  Message d'origine 
>>> De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be 
>>> Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00)
>>> À : OpenStreetMap Belgium 
>>> Cc : Stijn Rombauts 
>>> Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 1. This is a bridge: no doubt.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on
>>> an embankment enough reason to make it a bridge?
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 4. This one looks more like a bridge:
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge?
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 6. And if it gets shorter?
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 7. And this?
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on
>>> a bridge? Or above a tunnel?
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> 9. And if you turn around:
>>>
>>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>>
>>> I am curious about your opinion...
>>> But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How
>>> should they be mapped? That's the question.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> StijnRR
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Tim Couwelier]

I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here.

As for how I try to decide:
Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this
one is at goes as the 'baselevel'.
Either a new road / railway / .. goes:
OVER it, making that a bridge
UNDER it, making it a tunnel
AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL, making the existing road/path a bridge or tunnel
based on how that got adjusted.

That makes this a railway-bridge:
https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9501557,3.1304248,3a,60y,255.18h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8dGdG1hKMYxX3JldKdTSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
But this, just a bit further, and at the same level as the road shown in
the previous example, a tunnel for cyclists:
https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9516067,3.1299799,3a,48.9y,281.94h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPooi08Nvz-feFB6XzaibnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Hope that makes sense, I personally feel it matches with how people tend to
label things.





Op di 28 mei 2019 om 00:04 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet <
pieterv...@gmail.com>:

> Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug,
> it's not a tunnel.
>
> I have another cool example, not from belgium though:
> https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste (in
> winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on top).
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
>
> Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . :
>
>> Hi Stijn and all
>>
>> In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in
>> mountain, under a river, ...
>>
>> Otherwise I would think of a viaduct.
>>
>> In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents...
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>>
>> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>>
>>  Message d'origine 
>> De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be 
>> Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00)
>> À : OpenStreetMap Belgium 
>> Cc : Stijn Rombauts 
>> Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1. This is a bridge: no doubt.
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough.
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an
>> embankment enough reason to make it a bridge?
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 4. This one looks more like a bridge:
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge?
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 6. And if it gets shorter?
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 7. And this?
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on
>> a bridge? Or above a tunnel?
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> 9. And if you turn around:
>>
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>>
>> I am curious about your opinion...
>> But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How
>> should they be mapped? That's the question.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> StijnRR
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[Talk-it] PEBAthon a Padova, 2 giugno

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Buongiorno a tutti.

All'interno del percorso del PEBA (Piano per l'Eliminazione delle 
Barriere Architettoniche) del Comune di Padova 
(http://www.padovanet.it/peba) è stato organizzato un "*PEBAthon*", una 
mattinata di editing comunitario per inserire insieme in OpenStreetMap 
le informazioni raccolte durante le mappature partecipate svoltesi nelle 
prime 5 consulte.


L'evento si svolgerà *domenica 2 giugno, **dalle 9:00 alle 13:00* presso 
la Sala Anziani 
 del 
Comune di Padova, ed è indirizzato sia a mappatori esperti, sia a 
aspiranti mappatori che hanno intenzione di imparare le basi per 
contribuire a OpenStreetMap.


Maggiori informazioni qui: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PEBA_Comune_di_Padova#PEBAthon


Per un'organizzazione ottimale dell'evento, si richiede di mandare 
un'e-mail di interesse e conferma (così come eventuali domande e 
richieste) all'indirizzo p...@comune.padova.it


Ale

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

Re: [Talk-it] Source sentiero

[Volker Schmidt]

OK


On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 08:49, Alfredo Gattai 
wrote:

> Se lo facessi tu mi faresti un favore, e' un periodo un po' frenetico per
> me
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:45 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> Lo fai tu o lo faccio io?
>>
>>
>
>> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [talk-cz] Upgrade OsmHiCheck

[Tom Ka]

Diky moc, nebude to hned, ale jak bud chvilka, tak na to mrknu.

Bye

po 27. 5. 2019 v 19:44 odesílatel majka  napsal:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 16:00, Tom Ka  wrote:
>>
>> ted jsou 3 typy ikon podle druhu problemu, ale tohle muze byt uchovano
>> v barve ikony, jestli to mas nejak vyzkousene, posles mi bud ukzkovy
>> GPX nebo staci ty casti:
>>
>> XXX
>
>
> Tohle vyjelo exportem z Locusu:
> information : "informace" - u mě "information:board"
> map: "mapa"
> triangle-down: u mě "bod záchrany", je z jiné sady ikon Locusu a 
> bude asi chtít něco lepšího
> signpost-3: rozcestník
> symbol_inter: "otazník" - tedy u mě jen informace bez dalšího
>
> Ty ikony jsou brané odsud, jen Locus je nabral a nabízí ke stažení v několika 
> sadách.
>
> Kompletní krátký soubor gpx z Locusu, jeden bod pro každou kategorii je v 
> příloze.
>
> Majka
> ___
> 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-it] Source sentiero

[Alfredo Gattai]

Se lo facessi tu mi faresti un favore, e' un periodo un po' frenetico per me

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:45 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Lo fai tu o lo faccio io?
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-it] Source sentiero

[Volker Schmidt]

Lo fai tu o lo faccio io?

On Mon, 27 May 2019, 23:21 Alfredo Gattai,  wrote:

> Behsembra un'esempio da manuale che rispecchia tutto cio' che non
> andrebbe fatto e cioe':
>
> 1) mappare da una sorgente cartacea che al di la della precisione potrebbe
> anche avere dei diritti d'autore che in questo modo non vengono rispettati
> 2) mappare senza esserci stati
> 3) usare tag sbagliati tipo ref
> 4) scrivere in italiano dove andrebbe scritto in inglese
> 5) ...etc...
>
> Posso capire l'ira dell'escursionista ma quando si fa un'escursione non
> preparata basandosi solo su cio' che si trova in OSM, meglio non
> prendersela tanto e contattare il mappatore inesperto e dargli due
> dritte
>
> Alfredo
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:37 PM Andreas Lattmann 
> wrote:
>
>> Buongiorno,
>> Il source del seguente sentiero [1] è riferito a:
>>
>> Esino Lario Carta escursionistica sentieri e toponimi - CAI, ANA,
>> Associazione Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus
>>
>> E su note:
>>
>> Va controllato il tracciato del sentiero con un gps
>>
>> È lecito il source utilizzato?
>>
>> Un escursionista ha aperto una nota [2] chiedendo la cancellazione
>> definendo il sentiero "Ravano totale/traccia di merda, da levare.".
>>
>> Grazie
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294244973/history
>> [2] Nota #1783134
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it