Re: [Talk-it] Il Meteo mancata attribuzione.

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Chiesto pubblicamente attribuzione via Twitter: 
https://twitter.com/alesarrett/status/1185771106730422272


Vediamo se ci lavorando...

Ale

On 19/10/19 23:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 19. Oct 2019, at 20:20, Andreas Lattmann  wrote:

Buongiorno,
su cellulare non sembra che diano l'attribuzione, sbaglio?

https://www.ilmeteo.it/portale/radar-italia


confermo, solo a leaflet, ma non ad OpenStreetMap

Ciao Martin
___
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-ja] お尋ね：離れ?物置？

[info]

いいださん

コメントありがとうございました。

＞鶏小屋
たしかに、当事者じゃないと、用途は分からないわけで…。

ところで、台風20号が来るらしいという予測に驚いています（台風が多過ぎです！）。

細々とですが、またマッピングに戻ります。



On 2019-10-18 12:00, talk-ja-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

Talk-ja
メーリングリストへの投稿は以下のアドレスに送ってください．

talk-ja@openstreetmap.org

Webブラウザを使って入退会するには以下のURLにどうぞ．

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
メールを使う場合，件名(Subject:)または本文に help
と書いて以下の アドレスに送信してください．
talk-ja-requ...@openstreetmap.org

メーリングリストの管理者への連絡は，以下のアドレスにお願いします.

talk-ja-ow...@openstreetmap.org

返信する場合，件名を書き直して内容がわかるようにしてください．
そのままだと，以下のようになってしまいます．
"Re: Talk-ja まとめ読み, XX 巻 XX 号"


本日の話題:

   1. Re: お尋ね：離れ?物置？ (Satoshi IIDA)
   2. 太陽電池のマッピングについて (OKADA Tsuneo)
   3. Re: お尋ね：離れ?物置？ (i...@mizunomichi.me)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:02:33 +0900
From: Satoshi IIDA 
To: OpenStreetMap Japanese talk 
Subject: Re: [OSM-ja] お尋ね：離れ?物置？
Message-ID:

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

いいだです。
僕も、建物としてマッピングしてしまってよいと思います。
岡田さんに+1です。

オフトピ: もう随分前、Google Mapsだったか地理院地図だったかで、
実家の鶏小屋が建物として表示されてたときは、確かにちょっと不思議な感覚あったなぁ。。。 :)


2019年10月17日(木) 17:01 OKADA Tsuneo :


岡田です。

めぐみさん：
> 皆様にお尋ねしたい事があるのですが、家屋の近くに建てられている小さな建物（building）の扱いで、留意事項などあるでしょうか？

小屋でも物置でも移動しないものであれば「建物」で良いと思います。
住居なのか物置なのか判別つかないものも多いと思いますが、「 building=yes 」に
しておけば良いのでしょう。

こちらなどもご参考に。
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:%E5%BB%BA%E7%89%A9

2019年10月16日(水) 20:20 :


台風19号関連のマッピングを、ささやかながらお手伝いさせていただいています。

皆様にお尋ねしたい事があるのですが、家屋の近くに建てられている小さな建物（building）の扱いで、留意事項などあるでしょうか？


伝統的に、「離れ」として立てられた小さい建物は、多世帯住宅の別館的な扱いになったり、親戚を住まわせたり、近年は引きこもって暮らす家族の居住空間として使われたりもしているようです。プレハブの場合もあるみたいですね。もちろん、ただの物置の可能性もありますが。

土砂崩れの危険がありそうな地域では、人命救助の必要を考慮して、私は「離れ」らしい建物も可能な限り入力するようにしています。

他の方々がどう扱っていらっしゃるか、教えていただけると幸いです。

ウォーターズめぐみ（イギリスより）

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




--
岡田常雄(OKADA Tsuneo)
tsuneo.ok...@gmail.com
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja




--
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
-- next part --
HTMLの添付ファイルを保管しました...
URL:


--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:35:09 +0900
From: OKADA Tsuneo 
To: OpenStreetMap Japanese talk 
Subject: [OSM-ja] 太陽電池のマッピングについて
Message-ID:

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

岡田です。

最近このMLに登録したのでスレッドにできませんが、
太陽電池のマッピングについて、英語版のwikiの説明が日本語版には最近のものが
反映されてなかったので、私の方で更新してみました。
ご確認下さい。
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:generator:method%3Dphotovoltaic

実は 英語版とは相違がありまして、
-solar-photovoltaic (太陽光発電)
-solar-thermal (太陽熱発電)
という階層に対して、英語版では
solar, thermalに説明あり、photovoltaicには説明なしなのですが、
日本語版では
thermal、photovoltaicに説明あり、solarには説明なしとしています。

これはthermalの説明がsolarとthermalの両方にあって（しかも内容が微妙に違う）
そのままコピーしただけではわかりにくいなと思ったので、thermalの方に
内容をまとめたからです。

本来であればこちらとかで相談してから変えた方が良かったのかもしれませんが、
書いてみないとよくわからなかったので、ひとまず勝手ながら変更させていただきました。

ご意見などありましたら。

--
岡田常雄(OKADA Tsuneo)
tsuneo.ok...@gmail.com
-- next part --
HTMLの添付ファイルを保管しました...
URL:


--

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:45:03 +0100
From: i...@mizunomichi.me
To: talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-ja] お尋ね：離れ?物置？
Message-ID: <6a29dce3eeb6bcf01e5fbc234f161...@mizunomichi.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

岡田さん

早速のお返事とリンク、ありがとうございます。

了解しました（building なら間違いありませんよね）。

ニュースやツイッターなどで見る台風19号の爪痕が深く、驚いています。

またマッピングに戻ります。

ウォーターズめぐみ



--

Subject: まとめ読みフッタ

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


--

以上: Talk-ja まとめ読み, 140 巻, 11 号



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

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Warin]

On 20/10/19 08:45, cleary wrote:


I would like to confirm that the inclusion of qualifiers such as 
"closed" or "freight only" in the name is NOT appropriate.


+1 for not appropriate. Use the description tag.



e.g.
railway=station
name = xx (closed)
 or
railway=station
name=xxx (freight only)

I understand both are inappropriate uses of the name tag and should 
not be used.


I think the first should be tagged as disused or abandoned such as
disused:railway=station
name=

and the second with
railway=yard
name=xxx

Is that generally agreed?

Yes from me.


What about a former railway station that is now freight only. Can one 
combine disused:railway=station and railway=yard on the one node or 
should there be multiple nodes?


I think they should be areas.

I would not bother with the disused: as it is now in use for a similar 
purpose. Putting both tags on the same way would mean the render has to 
decide what to show. I'd make the choice for them - present use is more 
important. If it is important is some way then use the description tag, 
e.g. 'description=Was a passenger station'.










On Sat, 19 Oct 2019, at 6:53 AM, Ewen Hill wrote:


Hi,
   I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations 
like 
https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1 that 
has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades



There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the 
Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the 
ATG)


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





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



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

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Warin]

On 19/10/19 20:44, Ewen Hill wrote:

Thanks Warin,
   I have been using a node or polygon for the railway station as 
follows however it is raising a level 2 error in osmose...


name=xxx
historic:railway = station (or station_site)


I think osmose may be complaining that it is not an area?
If an area, then it may just be that historic:railway is not documented 
on the wiki so osmose objects.


If the building can be traced, I would also add a polygon
building=train_station

There appears to be a lot of confusion (see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations#Stations_and_sites_which_are_not_currently_in_operation ) 
over


  * historic:railway=station
  * railway:historic=station
  * disused=yes
  * not tagging it at all with any railway tags



disused=yes is not good, it should be disused:*=*


I would be against railway:historic... for historic:railway.

The confusion is because people try to map different things:
some try to map things that are no longer there - don't map, use OHM!
some try to map things that are disused - disused:*=*
some try to map things that are re-purposed

The answers are many, and even where the item is the same thing the 
answers change from mapper to mapper and with time.
Example: disused=yes used to be the tagging method, now it is 
disused:*=*...



I want to keep the information from appearing in current travel 
options but available to explain how the township formed around a 
particular location


Personally I don't usually use historic as I am not usually certain of 
the historic worth of the thing. So usually disused: abandoned: etc for me.




Ewen

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 19:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote:
>
> Hi,
>    I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway
stations
> like
>

https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
 that

> has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
>
>
> There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the
> Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add
to the ATG)


The building is still a building...map as a way with
building=train_station as it is recognisable as a train station?

It does appear to be now a museum... I'd map that as a separate node
with the relevant details.


It was a train station or halt.. Could be be one again? This
should be
an area that includes the building and local track.

disused:railway=halt/station or disused:public_transport=station

or abandoned:*=*

If no longer in existence then consider mapping it in OHM.

Nothing Oz specific about it?


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



--
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia



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

Re: [Talk-it] Info limiti legali nell'estrazione e riutilizzo di dati.

[Alessandro Vitali]

Grazie per tutte le info!
Vedo cosa riesco a combinare.

Intanto, da novizio, sto provando ad estrarre con overpass un excel con la
suddivisione in colonne dei vari dati inerenti ai numeri civici... vediamo
se ci riesco...

Il giorno ven 18 ott 2019 alle ore 21:03 Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Am Do., 17. Okt. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Andrea Musuruane <
> musur...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Risposta semplice: il database di OSM è sotto ODbL.Quindi non puoi
>> riusare i dati se non rendendo disponibile l'opera derivata sotto la stessa
>> licenza.
>>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>>
>> Risposta complicata: tu sei il creatore delle informazioni che hai
>> rilevato e inserito direttamente tu. Di queste puoi fare quello che vuoi.
>> Ma SOLO di quelle che hai rilevato, inserito ed eventualmente modificato
>> SOLO tu. Se anche un solo altro utente ha modificato una feature, quella
>> modifica NON si può usare con una licenza diversa dalla ODbL.
>>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>> Mi sembra una strada molto complicata da seguire, a meno che tu non abbia
>> preventivamente messo da parte le informazioni che poi hai inserito in OSM.
>>
>
>
> Andrea, mi stupisce che scrivi così, avrei pensato non può essere molto
> complicato scaricarsi al meno il lavoro proprio dove ha inserito la
> versione 1.
> Potrebbe scaricarsi il full-history (estratto), e con `osmium cat` nel
> formato opl potrebbe cercare il suo nome utente o meglio numero id utente.
> Questi saranno tutto i suoi contributi, e se sono nella versione 1 (nodi,
> quindi un altro grep) non ci possono essere altri diritti (se non ci
> fossero già stati nella fonte del suo edit). Per le way è più complicato,
> perché possono crearsi da spezzamenti di altri way, sembrano in versione 1
> ma in realà ci possono spesso essere contenuti contributi da altri (bisogna
> guardarsi anche i nodi dei way).
>
> Ciao
> Martin
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Hay Mills Rotor Station

[Andy Mabbett]

Thank you; and apologies - that's the image I meant.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 23:22, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
>
> Curious. I'm struggling but here is another photo that shows more of the 
> surroundings. I'll keep poking around.
>
> https://www.airteamimages.com/pics/94/94944_800.jpg
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to pinpoint the former location of Hay Mills Rotor Station:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_Mills_Rotor_Station
>>
>> a helidrome that operated in south Birmingham from June 1951 to
>> January 1954. The coordinates I have used in that article are an
>> estimate, based on the photo seen there, and recollections found in
>> online forums.
>>
>> I've looked at all the aerial imagery I can access in JOSM, but can see no 
>> sign.
>>
>> Can anyone find a trace on some other set of imagery, or an old map?
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands



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

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Hay Mills Rotor Station

[Rob Nickerson]

Curious. I'm struggling but here is another photo that shows more of the
surroundings. I'll keep poking around.

https://www.airteamimages.com/pics/94/94944_800.jpg

*Rob*


On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> I'm trying to pinpoint the former location of Hay Mills Rotor Station:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_Mills_Rotor_Station
>
> a helidrome that operated in south Birmingham from June 1951 to
> January 1954. The coordinates I have used in that article are an
> estimate, based on the photo seen there, and recollections found in
> online forums.
>
> I've looked at all the aerial imagery I can access in JOSM, but can see no
> sign.
>
> Can anyone find a trace on some other set of imagery, or an old map?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[cleary]

I would like to confirm that the inclusion of qualifiers such as "closed" or 
"freight only" in the name is NOT appropriate.

e.g. 
railway=station
name = xx (closed)
 or 
railway=station
name=xxx (freight only)

I understand both are inappropriate uses of the name tag and should not be used.

I think the first should be tagged as disused or abandoned such as
disused:railway=station
name=

and the second with
railway=yard
name=xxx

Is that generally agreed? 

What about a former railway station that is now freight only. Can one combine 
disused:railway=station and railway=yard on the one node or should there be 
multiple nodes?









On Sat, 19 Oct 2019, at 6:53 AM, Ewen Hill wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations like 
> https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
>  that has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
> 
> 
> There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the Wiki. What 
> is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the ATG)
> 
> ___
> 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] Hay Mills Rotor Station

[Andy Mabbett]

I'm trying to pinpoint the former location of Hay Mills Rotor Station:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_Mills_Rotor_Station

a helidrome that operated in south Birmingham from June 1951 to
January 1954. The coordinates I have used in that article are an
estimate, based on the photo seen there, and recollections found in
online forums.

I've looked at all the aerial imagery I can access in JOSM, but can see no sign.

Can anyone find a trace on some other set of imagery, or an old map?

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

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

[OpenStreetMap Serbia] Prvo okupljanje domaće OSM zajednice

[Branko Kokanovic]

Pozdrav svima,
07.12. u 17h u Španskih boraca 3a je zakazano prvo (?) okupljanje domace 
OSM zajednice. Sačuvajte datum i vidimo se, nadam se u što većem broju!


Nema neke posebne teme sastanka, hajde da se za početak skupimo i 
upoznamo. Znamo da će doći ljudi iz Microsoft-a koji su radili puteve po 
Srbiji, znamo da će doći predstavnici wikipedije, možda čak i 
predstavnici RGZ-a. U svakom slučaju, treba da bude fino:)


Svi ste pozvani i dobrodošli!

Wiki link: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Serbia/Meetups

Meetup link: 
https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Serbia-Meetup/events/265723160


poz, Kokan

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

Re: [Talk-it] Il Meteo mancata attribuzione.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Oct 2019, at 20:20, Andreas Lattmann  wrote:
> 
> Buongiorno,
> su cellulare non sembra che diano l'attribuzione, sbaglio?
> 
> https://www.ilmeteo.it/portale/radar-italia


confermo, solo a leaflet, ma non ad OpenStreetMap 

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

[Talk-it] Il Meteo mancata attribuzione.

[Andreas Lattmann]

Buongiorno,
su cellulare non sembra che diano l'attribuzione, sbaglio?

https://www.ilmeteo.it/portale/radar-italia

Grazie.
Andreas
--
樂

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

Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting road classifications

[Jherome Miguel]

I agree that the official classifications by the DPWH does not correspond
very well with those of OSM's. This is also true for some countries as
well. But I still see trunk class matches with national primary (with some
exceptions) and primary class with national secondary (with a handful of
exceptions). And so far, in local usage, a road generically called
"National Road/Highway" means a major route, but we still have to rely on
how the road is actually used by traffic, so, we can still say we should
not rely too much on the official classification.

For me, trunk class should be a long-distance highway route that is not an
expressway, and as I look on the existing road network, we've got too many
of this, especially around CALABARZON. We should be reducing this to the
backbone routes which carry traffic between regions and major cities. I
think the definitive criteria is this for a trunk road is:

*Usually a national primary (1 or 2-digit) route
*Continuous for hundreds of kilometers.
*Connects key cities and regional centers.

I still agree that primary must be restricted to those maintained by the
DPWH. I don't agree the main road to a city or town center should be all
primary (especially when it's no longer maintained by the DPWH, is not
numbered, or the existing highway route has been moved to bypass it), so
are other roads that connect all town centers (it's vague, and we've got so
many lower-level roads tagged as primary, which is not reflective either of
their actual importance). We can better explain primary can include most of
the secondary national roads, with exceptions we can discuss later, but we
can maintain the definition they are the roads that complement the trunk or
backbone network.


On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:28 AM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not convinced that we should take DPWH's road classifications with
> great weight in refining OSMPH's road classification. Note that "National
> Road" does not mean that the road is functionally important but rather it
> only means that DPWH is the government agency in charge of maintaining such
> roads as opposed to LGUs.
>
> I also understand that DPWH classifies National Roads as either
> expressway, primary, secondary, or tertiary, but looking at the following
> map of National Roads in Metro Manila, I do not quite agree with DPWH's
> classifications at least with respect to OSM:
> http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/2018%20DPWH%20ATLAS/Road%20Data%202016/NCR.jpg
>
> ~Eugene
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> With the Department of Public Works and Highways introducing route
>> numbers and reworking the road classifications since 2014, it seems the
>> road classifications also need to be revamped.
>>
>> The 2014 DPWH classifications are:
>>
>> *Expressway
>> *National road
>> ** National primary road (1-2 digit routes)
>> ** National secondary road (3-digit routes)
>> ** National tertiary road
>> *Provincial road
>> *City/municipal road
>> *Barangay road
>>
>> while the older classifications are:
>>
>> *Expressway
>> *National roads
>> **North-South Backbone
>> **East-West Laterals
>> **Other Roads of Strategic Importance
>> *Provincial roads
>> *City/municipal road
>> *Barangay road
>>
>> The introduction of route numbers and more specific national road classes
>> also meant reconsidering how we should use classifications. I agree trunk
>> would include the major national roads that form critical links between
>> cities and provinces, but I disagree with the present usage of primary.
>> There are many usages of the primary tag on roads classified as provincial
>> and below, which is not reflective of actual traffic patterns. It was
>> previously proposed in 2009 that primary should be restricted to the
>> national roads (see
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2010-January/001693.html),
>> but the plan seems to have stalled.
>>
>> The proposal I have considered, which largely adapted from the
>> conventions in Canada and Australia, is:
>>
>> *Trunk - major national roads that connect major cities (population
>> 100k+), and forms the national transportation backbone. Usually 1 to
>> 2-digit routes, or the primary national roads.
>> *Primary - all other national roads that connect other cities and
>> municipalities not served by the national road network,  In urban areas,
>> they form the other major cross-town routes. Usually 3-digit routes, or
>> secondary national roads.
>> *Secondary - In rural areas, roads that link municipalities to the
>> primary network. In urban areas, they are minor arteries, which are not
>> numbered national roads nor barangay roads, and, connects
>> barangays/districts to the primary network.
>> *Tertiary - In rural areas, roads that connect barangays into the
>> secondary roads and higher. In urban areas, collector roads that are
>> generally at the heart of a barangay or district.
>> * Unclassified - All other roads that do not fit tertiary or 

Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting road classifications

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Hi,

I am not convinced that we should take DPWH's road classifications with
great weight in refining OSMPH's road classification. Note that "National
Road" does not mean that the road is functionally important but rather it
only means that DPWH is the government agency in charge of maintaining such
roads as opposed to LGUs.

I also understand that DPWH classifies National Roads as either expressway,
primary, secondary, or tertiary, but looking at the following map of
National Roads in Metro Manila, I do not quite agree with DPWH's
classifications at least with respect to OSM:
http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/2018%20DPWH%20ATLAS/Road%20Data%202016/NCR.jpg

~Eugene

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> With the Department of Public Works and Highways introducing route numbers
> and reworking the road classifications since 2014, it seems the road
> classifications also need to be revamped.
>
> The 2014 DPWH classifications are:
>
> *Expressway
> *National road
> ** National primary road (1-2 digit routes)
> ** National secondary road (3-digit routes)
> ** National tertiary road
> *Provincial road
> *City/municipal road
> *Barangay road
>
> while the older classifications are:
>
> *Expressway
> *National roads
> **North-South Backbone
> **East-West Laterals
> **Other Roads of Strategic Importance
> *Provincial roads
> *City/municipal road
> *Barangay road
>
> The introduction of route numbers and more specific national road classes
> also meant reconsidering how we should use classifications. I agree trunk
> would include the major national roads that form critical links between
> cities and provinces, but I disagree with the present usage of primary.
> There are many usages of the primary tag on roads classified as provincial
> and below, which is not reflective of actual traffic patterns. It was
> previously proposed in 2009 that primary should be restricted to the
> national roads (see
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2010-January/001693.html),
> but the plan seems to have stalled.
>
> The proposal I have considered, which largely adapted from the conventions
> in Canada and Australia, is:
>
> *Trunk - major national roads that connect major cities (population
> 100k+), and forms the national transportation backbone. Usually 1 to
> 2-digit routes, or the primary national roads.
> *Primary - all other national roads that connect other cities and
> municipalities not served by the national road network,  In urban areas,
> they form the other major cross-town routes. Usually 3-digit routes, or
> secondary national roads.
> *Secondary - In rural areas, roads that link municipalities to the primary
> network. In urban areas, they are minor arteries, which are not numbered
> national roads nor barangay roads, and, connects barangays/districts to the
> primary network.
> *Tertiary - In rural areas, roads that connect barangays into the
> secondary roads and higher. In urban areas, collector roads that are
> generally at the heart of a barangay or district.
> * Unclassified - All other roads that do not fit tertiary or residential.
>
> The system is largely based on usage over official designation, as
> matching OSM's road classes with the Philippine government road
> designations is far illogical, as they do not clearly convey their main
> traffic usage. Our previous two guidelines basically follow the same
> principle, but are quite flawed.
>
> I am also considering eliminating the "living street" classification from
> the existing guidelines, but I have my second thoughts, especially for
> narrow ones that a typical motorcycle can enter.
>
> Some open questions:
>
> 1. How should we classify roads like Daang Hari, C-6/Laguna Lakeshore
> Highway, and C-5 Extension, which are major intercity routes but not
> national roads?
>
> 2. How should bypasses and diversion routes of national roads be
> classified?
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-de] Automatisches Hinzufügen von cash_withdrawal zu Rewe-Supermärkten

[Ferdinand Schicke]

So wie ich es verstanden haben waren die Gegen Positionen vorallem gegen 
automatische Edits welche durch mechanische Edits nicht mehr gültig sind.
Ebenfalls habe ich es so verstanden das der tag der tag sehr nützlich für viele 
data user ist weshalb es sich meiner Meinung nach lohn es manuel zu machen.
From: Sebastian Dicke via Talk-de
Sent: Samstag, 19. Oktober 2019 17:46
To: talk-de@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Sebastian Dicke
Subject: Re: [Talk-de]Automatisches Hinzufügen von cash_withdrawal zu 
Rewe-Supermärkten

Hallo,


ich hatte hier auf der Liste nicht den Eindruck, dass sich die Mehrheit
dagegen ausgesprochen hat. Es war eher eine kritische Betrachtung, um
mögliche Probleme auszuloten, die ich hier herausgelesen habe.


Grüße


Sebastian


Am 17.10.19 um 21:32 schrieb Michael Brandtner via Talk-de:
> Hallo,
>
> da sich hier und im Forum die Mehrheit gegen die ??nderung
> ausgesprochen hat, werde ich sie nicht vornehmen.
>
> Viele Gre
> Michael
>

___
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: [Talk-de] Automatisches Hinzufügen von cash_withdrawal zu Rewe-Supermärkten

[Sebastian Dicke via Talk-de]

Hallo,


ich hatte hier auf der Liste nicht den Eindruck, dass sich die Mehrheit
dagegen ausgesprochen hat. Es war eher eine kritische Betrachtung, um
mögliche Probleme auszuloten, die ich hier herausgelesen habe.


Grüße


Sebastian


Am 17.10.19 um 21:32 schrieb Michael Brandtner via Talk-de:

Hallo,

da sich hier und im Forum die Mehrheit gegen die ??nderung
ausgesprochen hat, werde ich sie nicht vornehmen.

Viele Gre
Michael



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

Re: [Talk-de] Automatisches Hinzufügen von cash_withdrawal zu Rewe-Supermärkten

[Ferdinand]

Ich habe nun die maproulette Challenge erstellen
Ihr könnt sie unter https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9951
finden.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Ferdi

Ferdinand  schrieb am Fr., 18. Okt. 2019, 00:26:

> Die letzten endes beste Lösung wird wohl eine maproullete Challenge sein
> das sollte dann auch alle edge cases berücksichtigen
>
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-it] Vorrei che qualcuno controllasse le mie modifiche

[Andrea Albani]

Il giorno dom 6 ott 2019 alle ore 11:36 Andrea Albani
 ha scritto:
>
>
>
> Il giorno dom 6 ott 2019 alle ore 09:59 Ivo Reano  ha 
> scritto:
>>
>> Sono d'accordo con Ferruccio, l'argomento è interessante; dovrebbe essere il 
>> modo con cui i senior aiutano chi affronta le sue prime mappature.
>>
>>>
>>> Altra cosa: per la sezione segnalata del sito hdyc, cosa c'entra una 
>>> richiesta di revisione con dei changeset sospetti?
>>
>>
>> Questo è un bel problema! Sarebbe meglio un servizio ad hoc. Ma al limite 
>> sapendo come fare ci arrangiamo.
>>
>> Altro problema è che il tag del changeset non può essere cambiato! Come 
>> faccio a sapere se il changeset  già stato visionato o meno?
>>
>> Per l'eventuale correzione o meglio suggerimento ed istruzione, ho scritto 
>> un commento sul changeset...
>> In questa maniera mando un feedback all'user e segnalo a "tutti" che 
>> qualcuno ha già visionato il lavoro.
>>
>
> La procedura è (purtroppo) quella che hai descritto e, diciamocelo... è un 
> accrocchio inventato per usare quello che abbiamo (OSM API in primis).
> L'ideale sarebbe impostare un flag sul changeset che indichi "validazione 
> eseguita", ma demandiamo questa funzione all'aggiunta di un commento, cosa 
> che rende praticamente impossibile effettuare delle query per sapere cosa è 
> stato validato e cosa no.
> Comunque oggi abbiamo più di 43000 [1] changeset con quel flag chissà 
> quanti sono stati "trattati".
>
> [1] 
> https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=review_requested=yes#2/13.2/9.8
>
>

Ciao,
ho popolato un db con i metadati di tutti i changeset OSM (e relativi
commenti) e quindi ho estratto qualche dato più attualizzato.
Il quadro non mi appare molto confortante: alla data di ieri c'erano a
livello globale 890.259 changeset flaggati con richiesta di review. Di
questi 19.021 hanno almeno un commento, ovvero solo il 2,1%.
A livello italiano su 9.082 changeset 298 sono stati commentati... un 3,3%.
Non sono entrato nel merito dei commenti, anche se, campionando a
caso, sembra siano di benvenuto e/o di commento su quanto editato.

Ciao

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

Re: [Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il sab 19 ott 2019, 11:26 liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu <
liste.gira...@posteo.eu> ha scritto:

> Il 19/10/19 11:13, demon_box ha scritto:
> > Francesco Ansanelli wrote
> >> ...
> >> Da quanto ho capito la situazione è questa:
> >>
> >> building=apartments
> >> building:use=retail
> >>
> >> Corretto?
> >> 
> >
> > no intendo un'altra cosa, ripeto ho un edificio (costruito appositamente
> per
> > quell'uso) che è INTERAMENTE ad esempio bar o ristorante: è corretto in
> > questo caso (non trattandosi di negozio) mettere building=retail?
> >
> > ti faccio un esempio concreto: ho un intero edificio che è un Mc Donald
> > (quindi amenity=fast-food e non uno shop=*) che valore metto al relativo
> > building?
> >
>
Building retail è giusto in questo caso...

A building primarily used for selling goods that are sold to the public;
use shop =* to identify the
sort of goods sold or an appropriate amenity
=* (pub, cafe, restaurant,
etc.). Consider use landuse
=retail
 for the
surrounding area.


> grazie
> >
> > --enrico
>
> Retail, se non ricordo male è magazzino, forse commercial, perchè
> comunque qualcosa si vende.
>
>
> --
> _|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
> |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
> Simone Girardelli
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 19/10/19 11:37, demon_box ha scritto:
> liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu wrote
>> forse commercial, perchè
>> comunque qualcosa si vende.
> 
> no perchè "commercial" in OSM non è inteso come vendita ma come uffici e
> servizi...
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial
> 
> --enrico
> 

E alora va de retail. :)



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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

[Simon Poole]

If it was outside of the UK it is very unlikely that the edits by the
employee would be considered anything protectable outside of them adding
a substantial extract of data from a database that is protected by EU
database regulation.

In the UK however I suppose there is a chance of the edits, assuming
they are not totally trivial, being a copyrightable work, which would
potentially require us to remove them if in the end they were not
available on terms that are compatible with the ODbL. If they don't
amount to that I don't see any recourse of the employer wrt the data
being in OSM.

That said, -don't use OSM behind the back of the employer-, get upfront
permission to use OSM.

Simon

Am 19.10.2019 um 10:12 schrieb Edward Bainton:
> Ah and perhaps we should distinguish between the employee whose
> manager says, "Put this into OSM" and the employee who thinks, "My
> employer doesn't care how I get the job done, so hang this proprietary
> GIS she's given me, my job is so much easier on OSM and she'll thank
> me for using it."
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 09:07, Edward Bainton  > wrote:
>
> Thank you both. To clarify, this is in the UK, where I am in
> discussion with two organisations.
>
> From a purely legal perspective, can I simply plough on trying to
> invest them in the usefulness of OSM on the basis that, if any
> employer became unhappy, their remedy is against their employee
> for signing the Contributor Agreement without authorisation - anIf
> it was d not against OSM, which can keep the data?
>
> In other words, if later becomes a problem, it's not OSM's problem.
>
> Obviously, good practice may dictate a less "not my problem"
> approach, but I'm trying to find the worst-case scenario before
> going further.
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 00:06, Kathleen Lu  > wrote:
>
> Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts
> which I think are relevant:
>
> As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will
> belong to the employer, it tends to depend on if the
> copyrightable work was made within the scope of the employee's
> job. (If you're a software programmer, it would be difficult
> for your employer to claim ownership a romance novel you
> write, but easier to claim ownership of code you write.)
>
> When an employee signs a contract, whether that contract is
> binding on the employer depends on whether the employee had
> authorization to sign on behalf of the employer, and sometimes
> whether it *seems* like to a reasonably objective person
> dealing with the employee whether the employee had authorization. 
>
> These two principles would be in tension with each other in
> the case of an employer who claimed, on the one hand, that
> their employee's job was to edit OSM, but on the other hand,
> the employee did not have authorization to sign the
> Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them
> to do their job.
>
> Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim
> ownership of such edits, I think it would be difficult for
> that same employer to also claim the Contributor Agreement
> does not apply.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM Simon Poole  > wrote:
>
> The question is rather complicated and if at all can
> really only be approached on a per jurisdiction base as
> both employment regulation and certain aspects of
> intellectual property law differ widely by territory.
>
> So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking
> place and which law is relevant.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 18. Oktober 2019 19:41:59 MESZ schrieb Edward Bainton
> mailto:bainton@gmail.com>>:
>
> Hi all
>
> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation: 
>
> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their
> employment, has the work been adequately licensed to
> OSM/the big wide Open?*
>
> According to UK Copyright Act 1988, 
> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or
> artistic work [F1
> 
> ,
> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of
> his employment, his employer is the first owner of any
> copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the
> contrary.
>  
> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is
> concerned, as having authority to license the work? 

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Ewen Hill]

Thanks Warin,
   I have been using a node or polygon for the railway station as follows
however it is raising a level 2 error in osmose...

name=xxx
historic:railway = station (or station_site)

If the building can be traced, I would also add a polygon
building=train_station

There appears to be a lot of confusion (see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations#Stations_and_sites_which_are_not_currently_in_operation
)
over

   - historic:railway=station
   - railway:historic=station
   - disused=yes
   - not tagging it at all with any railway tags

I want to keep the information from appearing in current travel options but
available to explain how the township formed around a particular location

Ewen

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 19:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations
> > like
> >
> https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
>  that
>
> > has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
> >
> >
> > There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the
> > Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the
> ATG)
>
>
> The building is still a building...map as a way with
> building=train_station as it is recognisable as a train station?
>
> It does appear to be now a museum... I'd map that as a separate node
> with the relevant details.
>
>
> It was a train station or halt.. Could be be one again? This should be
> an area that includes the building and local track.
>
> disused:railway=halt/station or disused:public_transport=station
>
> or abandoned:*=*
>
> If no longer in existence then consider mapping it in OHM.
>
> Nothing Oz specific about it?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Adam Horan]

For ones that do not exist at all I have modified some near me to
railway:historic station_site
which was recommended to me some time back. Example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4395763814/history

If there's a building there, and it's no longer acting as an actual station
then I'd also suggest the disused:railway=halt/station as above.

If it's a tourist train line and not actual public transport, then add
tourism = yes. In the OPs case it appears to be on an actual rail line.

Another example is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1766897047/history
This one has recently been modified to have public_transport = yes, which I
don't support as the trains only run once a month..., it's purely a
preserved/tourist railway.

Adam


On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 19:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations
> > like
> >
> https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
>  that
>
> > has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
> >
> >
> > There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the
> > Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the
> ATG)
>
>
> The building is still a building...map as a way with
> building=train_station as it is recognisable as a train station?
>
> It does appear to be now a museum... I'd map that as a separate node
> with the relevant details.
>
>
> It was a train station or halt.. Could be be one again? This should be
> an area that includes the building and local track.
>
> disused:railway=halt/station or disused:public_transport=station
>
> or abandoned:*=*
>
> If no longer in existence then consider mapping it in OHM.
>
> Nothing Oz specific about it?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[demon_box]

liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu wrote
> forse commercial, perchè
> comunque qualcosa si vende.

no perchè "commercial" in OSM non è inteso come vendita ma come uffici e
servizi...

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial

--enrico





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

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

Re: [Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 19/10/19 11:13, demon_box ha scritto:
> Francesco Ansanelli wrote
>> ...
>> Da quanto ho capito la situazione è questa:
>>
>> building=apartments
>> building:use=retail
>>
>> Corretto?
>> 
> 
> no intendo un'altra cosa, ripeto ho un edificio (costruito appositamente per
> quell'uso) che è INTERAMENTE ad esempio bar o ristorante: è corretto in
> questo caso (non trattandosi di negozio) mettere building=retail?
> 
> ti faccio un esempio concreto: ho un intero edificio che è un Mc Donald
> (quindi amenity=fast-food e non uno shop=*) che valore metto al relativo
> building?
> 
> grazie
> 
> --enrico

Retail, se non ricordo male è magazzino, forse commercial, perchè
comunque qualcosa si vende.


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

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

Re: [Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[demon_box]

Francesco Ansanelli wrote
> ...
> Da quanto ho capito la situazione è questa:
> 
> building=apartments
> building:use=retail
> 
> Corretto?
> 

no intendo un'altra cosa, ripeto ho un edificio (costruito appositamente per
quell'uso) che è INTERAMENTE ad esempio bar o ristorante: è corretto in
questo caso (non trattandosi di negozio) mettere building=retail?

ti faccio un esempio concreto: ho un intero edificio che è un Mc Donald
(quindi amenity=fast-food e non uno shop=*) che valore metto al relativo
building?

grazie

--enrico




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

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

Re: [Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Ciao Enrico,

Secondo me, sta facendo confusione tra il tipo di edificio e la
destinazione d'uso...
Se aprono un bar in una villa, rimane una villa! Vedi wiki:

wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:use

Da quanto ho capito la situazione è questa:

building=apartments
building:use=retail

Corretto?
Francesco

Il sab 19 ott 2019, 10:42 demon_box  ha scritto:

> ciao, dubbio
>
> se guardo il wiki per il corretto uso di building=retail
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Tag:building%3Dretail
>
> è pacifico che lo utilizzo in presenza di negozi
>
> ma se invece ho TUTTO l'intero edificio che è ad esempio un bar oppure un
> ristorante posso usarlo lo stesso o in questi casi meglio lasciare un
> generico building=yes?
>
> grazie
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-it] utilizzo di building=retail

[demon_box]

ciao, dubbio

se guardo il wiki per il corretto uso di building=retail

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Tag:building%3Dretail

è pacifico che lo utilizzo in presenza di negozi

ma se invece ho TUTTO l'intero edificio che è ad esempio un bar oppure un
ristorante posso usarlo lo stesso o in questi casi meglio lasciare un
generico building=yes?

grazie

--enrico




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

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

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Warin]

On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote:


Hi,
   I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations 
like 
https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1 that 
has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades



There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the 
Wiki. What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the ATG)



The building is still a building...map as a way with 
building=train_station as it is recognisable as a train station?


It does appear to be now a museum... I'd map that as a separate node 
with the relevant details.



It was a train station or halt.. Could be be one again? This should be 
an area that includes the building and local track.


disused:railway=halt/station or disused:public_transport=station

or abandoned:*=*

If no longer in existence then consider mapping it in OHM.

Nothing Oz specific about it?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

[Edward Bainton]

Ah and perhaps we should distinguish between the employee whose manager
says, "Put this into OSM" and the employee who thinks, "My employer doesn't
care how I get the job done, so hang this proprietary GIS she's given me,
my job is so much easier on OSM and she'll thank me for using it."

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 09:07, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Thank you both. To clarify, this is in the UK, where I am in discussion
> with two organisations.
>
> From a purely legal perspective, can I simply plough on trying to invest
> them in the usefulness of OSM on the basis that, if any employer became
> unhappy, their remedy is against their employee for signing the Contributor
> Agreement without authorisation - and not against OSM, which can keep the
> data?
>
> In other words, if later becomes a problem, it's not OSM's problem.
>
> Obviously, good practice may dictate a less "not my problem" approach, but
> I'm trying to find the worst-case scenario before going further.
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 00:06, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
>
>> Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts which I think
>> are relevant:
>>
>> As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will belong to the
>> employer, it tends to depend on if the copyrightable work was made within
>> the scope of the employee's job. (If you're a software programmer, it would
>> be difficult for your employer to claim ownership a romance novel you
>> write, but easier to claim ownership of code you write.)
>>
>> When an employee signs a contract, whether that contract is binding on
>> the employer depends on whether the employee had authorization to sign on
>> behalf of the employer, and sometimes whether it *seems* like to a
>> reasonably objective person dealing with the employee whether the employee
>> had authorization.
>>
>> These two principles would be in tension with each other in the case of
>> an employer who claimed, on the one hand, that their employee's job was to
>> edit OSM, but on the other hand, the employee did not have authorization to
>> sign the Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them to
>> do their job.
>>
>> Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim ownership of such
>> edits, I think it would be difficult for that same employer to also claim
>> the Contributor Agreement does not apply.
>>
>> -Kathleen
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM Simon Poole  wrote:
>>
>>> The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be
>>> approached on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and
>>> certain aspects of intellectual property law differ widely by territory.
>>>
>>> So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and
>>> which law is relevant.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> Am 18. Oktober 2019 19:41:59 MESZ schrieb Edward Bainton <
>>> bainton@gmail.com>:

 Hi all

 Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:

 *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has
 the work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*

 According to UK Copyright Act 1988,
 s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
 ,
 or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment,
 his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
 agreement to the contrary.

 Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as having
 authority to license the work? Or rather, which is what I take to be the
 more important question, if the employer became unhappy with OSM using
 their employee's edits, would her remedy be against OSM, or against her
 employee?

 Thanks!

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

[Edward Bainton]

Thank you both. To clarify, this is in the UK, where I am in discussion
with two organisations.

>From a purely legal perspective, can I simply plough on trying to invest
them in the usefulness of OSM on the basis that, if any employer became
unhappy, their remedy is against their employee for signing the Contributor
Agreement without authorisation - and not against OSM, which can keep the
data?

In other words, if later becomes a problem, it's not OSM's problem.

Obviously, good practice may dictate a less "not my problem" approach, but
I'm trying to find the worst-case scenario before going further.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 00:06, Kathleen Lu  wrote:

> Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts which I think
> are relevant:
>
> As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will belong to the
> employer, it tends to depend on if the copyrightable work was made within
> the scope of the employee's job. (If you're a software programmer, it would
> be difficult for your employer to claim ownership a romance novel you
> write, but easier to claim ownership of code you write.)
>
> When an employee signs a contract, whether that contract is binding on the
> employer depends on whether the employee had authorization to sign on
> behalf of the employer, and sometimes whether it *seems* like to a
> reasonably objective person dealing with the employee whether the employee
> had authorization.
>
> These two principles would be in tension with each other in the case of an
> employer who claimed, on the one hand, that their employee's job was to
> edit OSM, but on the other hand, the employee did not have authorization to
> sign the Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them to
> do their job.
>
> Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim ownership of such
> edits, I think it would be difficult for that same employer to also claim
> the Contributor Agreement does not apply.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be
>> approached on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and
>> certain aspects of intellectual property law differ widely by territory.
>>
>> So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and which
>> law is relevant.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Am 18. Oktober 2019 19:41:59 MESZ schrieb Edward Bainton <
>> bainton@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:
>>>
>>> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
>>> work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
>>>
>>> According to UK Copyright Act 1988,
>>> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
>>> ,
>>> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his
>>> employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
>>> agreement to the contrary.
>>>
>>> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as having
>>> authority to license the work? Or rather, which is what I take to be the
>>> more important question, if the employer became unhappy with OSM using
>>> their employee's edits, would her remedy be against OSM, or against her
>>> employee?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail
>> gesendet.
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[Ewen Hill]

Hi,
   I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations like
https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
that
has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades


There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the Wiki.
What is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the ATG)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au