Re: [OSM-talk-fr] import cadastre d'une petite zone

[DH]

Le 12/05/2020 à 02:24, Vincent de Château-Thierry a écrit :

Bonsoir-nuit


De: "Jérôme Amagat" 

Je n'y connais pas grand chose mais je ne pense pas que la débauche
d’énergie soit dans ce sens, dans le premier cas c'est juste un
téléchargement dans l'autre il faut récupérer les données dans les
pdf.
Moi je préfères la méthode via le plugin josm, par contre aujourd'hui
ça ne marche pas :(
Il faut prendre l'habitude de sélectionner une zone très petite pour
ne télécharger qu"une planche et faire attention de ne pas
télécharger dans la planche avec les données osm... La mise à jour
trimestriel, ne m'a que très rarement posé un problème. Sur
cadastre.openstreetmap.fr c'est très long pour avoir une commune en
entier maintenant que les pdf sont plus petit.

La méthode sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr à base de scrapping des PDFs a eu son heure de 
gloire (et son efficacité) jusqu'au jour où la DGFiP a modifié le paramétrage de la 
fonction d'impression PDF à laquelle on accédait, pour en effet diviser par 100 la 
surface imprimable d'un seul tenant. Dans le cadre de BANO on maintenait à jour un cache 
des données du Cadastre en récupérant toutes les communes mises à jour au fil de leur 
parution. Pour continuer "comme avant" il aurait fallu compenser le facteur 100 
en faisant 100x plus d'appels aux serveurs de la DGFiP... qui nous a demandé de lever le 
pied. C'est une des raisons de BANO v2 : le changement d'approvisionnement de la source 
Cadastre pour ne plus dépendre des PDFs, et ne plus solliciter les serveurs de la DGFiP.
On y a perdu en actualité, le Cadastre Etalab étant mis à jour par trimestre, 
et en précision dans les zones téléchargeables en effet, puisqu'on fonctionne 
par feuilles entières.
Mais on y a (je trouve) gagné en ergonomie puisqu'on peut rester dans JOSM  
quand on veut des données, via le plugin Cadastre actualisé par Vincent Privat. 
Plus besoin de sortir de JOSM, aller sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr, chercher sa 
commune, sélectionner sa zone, attendre, récupérer les données, les ouvrir dans 
JOSM. Je rejoins Jérôme là dessus.
Tout ça reste affaire de goût, je suis d'accord. En revanche, gardez à l'esprit 
la demande de la DGFiP. Le moins on se sert directement via les PDFs le plus on 
respecte leur souhait et leurs serveurs, ce qui serait élégant de notre part 
vus le service énorme qu'ils nous ont rendu dès 2008 (coucou DenisH) en nous 
autorisant à piocher dans leurs données, bien avant la vague de l'OpenData.
En complément, le service sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr n'est quasi plus 
maintenu. Il reste actif mais gagnerait à être coupé, tant vis-à-vis de la 
DGFiP que faute de mainteneurs.

vincent



...

- Oh Papa, j'entendais le pays qui me disait : revieng, revieng !

- Té, grand couillon, tu fais pleurer ta mère alors.

https://www.ina.fr/video/PUB3214563082

Denis, pas encore archivé par l'INA


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

Re: [talk-cz] was:highway=primary

[jozka]

Pak ale nepopisuje realitu, coz si myslim je trochu problem.

J.

__
> Od: "Jan Macura" 
> Komu: "OpenStreetMap Czech Republic" 
> Datum: 11.05.2020 12:15
> Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] was:highway=primary
>
>Ahoj
>
>On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 06:51,  wrote:
>
>> Obcas mivali stavari na svych nastenkach mezi papiry z projektu obrazek
>> chlapecka na nocniku s napisem "zadna prace neni skoncena, dokud neni
>> papirove vyrizena". Ten clovek, co to menil neni zjevne stavar :-)
>>
>
>A nebo možná je, ale uvědomuje si ten rozdíl mezi státním aparátem a OSM.
>
>H.
>
>
>--
>
>___
>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: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Alexandre Oliveira]

> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does 
> not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the 
> copyright
> page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under ODbL for a 
> map that has multiple data sources, then OSM would be violating others' ODbL 
> licenses.

IANAL, but when contacting government agencies in Brazil requesting
permission to use their data, I always ask if the agency is okay with
attribution through the wiki page that the attribution text links to
and they all agree with it, so it's not a violation of the terms of
the license?

> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by a 
> company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with but *is 
> not hosted* by an
> entity. I agree that if someone were to use OSM tiles hosted by OSM, then 
> attribution should be visible in the corner at all times.

This hostility against FLOSS bugs me. Companies are hostile towards
something that is free and libre, with no restriction of use, the only
thing we ask for is attribution so people can be informed about where
the data you're using originated from. And it's not exclusive to OSM,
not crediting FLOSS on purpose because it's "open" is a trend in tech
companies, as mentioned a few replies ago by some user. And what we've
seen here is a clear example of this trend: Mapbox exploiting OSM for
its data without proper attribution (or hiding it), and instead
misdirecting users to think Mapbox created both the data and tile
service.

As mentioned by Martin:

> actually you even have to put a mapbox logo on the map if you show your own 
> data, hosted by mapbox:
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
>
> Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both 
> the Mapbox wordmark and text attribution.
>
> You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style or 
> custom data hosted by Mapbox.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was required to add a visible attribution
to Mapbox if I used its data and OSM tiles, for example. Or would it
be okay to hide the attribution because I'm using data that "isn't
hosted" by an entity? Or because OSM is FLOSS, a special treatment is
required?

I would like to propose a thought exercise. What is the most important
part of the map, its tiles or its data? I like to think that a map is
a visual representation of data, so a tile would be its visual
representation. A map isn't a map without data, and you can't build a
map tile without data. So, why is it that the visible attribution
should be to its visual part, instead of its data?

One idea I had (and is against my personal beliefs): add DRM to OSM
data, so we can control access and usage by corporate entities that
don't properly attribute OSM. It would be some sort of "reverse-DRM"
(because DRM acts against users, this one would act against
companies). Imagine clicking on a POI in your Mapbox hosted map and
instead of showing its details, it would display "Attribution is
required before you can read the details!", à la
#AttributionIsNotOptional. I'm pretty sure companies would rush and
say the lack of attribution was accidental.

I'm not fond of DRM and I really hope we don't reach this extent of
turning OSM less free because of corporate lobbying against crediting
the crucial part of a map.


As Joseph said:

> The attribution goes on the map.
> This is not a difficult requirement to meet.


> The most recent version of the guidelines
> drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community criticism
> about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially hidden attribution.

Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the guidelines?


-- 
Atenciosamente,
Alexandre Oliveira.

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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Martin Machyna]

I am just going to paste here what I wrote on Slack and I as well consider
removal of counties from admin_level=6 as vandalism.

Pasted text:

My argument would be to not take boundary=administrative in a strict sense
of government, but use it to tag all the areas that are part of the
administration system.
And I think that we should keep in mind a user of OSM data, who does not
seek to understand all the little nuances of US government system (there
are more specialized projects for that like Wikipedia), but rather looks
for a simple and consistent way how to subset or graphically represent GIS
data.  In that sense I would find very confusing to download OSM data and
find out that all states have counties at admin_level=6 , except for CT I
have to look for some other obscure tag to recreate the same spacial
devisions.
In the end, no one cares that counties in CT seized to exist, because even
state of CT itself is still actively using them for statistical and other
purposes (as here). And I would think the same logic of thinking would
expand to COGs or other administrative regions.


>> Also, I don't believe in "states with no counties".  I do believe in
>> "county government dissolved".  Still, the counties as boundaries
>> continue to exist, and remain important, and shoudl still be
>> admin_level=6.  Many times interacting with the government you are
>> required to list your county.  And, almost everyone believes in county
>> boundaries and the notion of knowing which county you are in, even if
>> they don't collect taxes and have employees.
>
> I don't wish to insult you, but in this regard, it matters little what
> you believe.  As long as we agree that the constructs of human
> political institutions "are what we say they are," beliefs really
> don't enter the equation.  There really do appear to be four states
> without counties, though two (Alaska and Louisiana) have "county
> equivalents."  The two remaining (2.5 if we include Massachusetts' 8
> non-counties out of its 14) which really don't are Rhode Island (and
> that's fairly "pure" when it comes to "no counties," they are truly
> geographic in nature, not political) and Connecticut.  The latter
> "dissolved" its counties in 1960, "reformulated 15 RCOGs" (councils of
> town governments with strictly limited function, like landuse
> planning), then in 2014 reduced these to 9 RCOGs.

My point is that in Massachusetts, counties are real in that the
government expects you to know what county you are in, and there are
signs. Many state government functions are lined up with these counties
- it's just that the people are state employees instead.  The federal
government believes in counties - they are used to organize lots of
things even if the counties have no taxing and spending.  So they really
are a political subdivision, even if they have zero government
functions.

We in the Massachusetts local community want to have admin_level 6
relations for these boundaries, and I personally consider deleting them
to be vandalism.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] import cadastre d'une petite zone

[Vincent de Château-Thierry]

Bonsoir-nuit

> De: "Jérôme Amagat" 
> 
> Je n'y connais pas grand chose mais je ne pense pas que la débauche
> d’énergie soit dans ce sens, dans le premier cas c'est juste un
> téléchargement dans l'autre il faut récupérer les données dans les
> pdf.
> Moi je préfères la méthode via le plugin josm, par contre aujourd'hui
> ça ne marche pas :(
> Il faut prendre l'habitude de sélectionner une zone très petite pour
> ne télécharger qu"une planche et faire attention de ne pas
> télécharger dans la planche avec les données osm... La mise à jour
> trimestriel, ne m'a que très rarement posé un problème. Sur
> cadastre.openstreetmap.fr c'est très long pour avoir une commune en
> entier maintenant que les pdf sont plus petit.

La méthode sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr à base de scrapping des PDFs a eu son 
heure de gloire (et son efficacité) jusqu'au jour où la DGFiP a modifié le 
paramétrage de la fonction d'impression PDF à laquelle on accédait, pour en 
effet diviser par 100 la surface imprimable d'un seul tenant. Dans le cadre de 
BANO on maintenait à jour un cache des données du Cadastre en récupérant toutes 
les communes mises à jour au fil de leur parution. Pour continuer "comme avant" 
il aurait fallu compenser le facteur 100 en faisant 100x plus d'appels aux 
serveurs de la DGFiP... qui nous a demandé de lever le pied. C'est une des 
raisons de BANO v2 : le changement d'approvisionnement de la source Cadastre 
pour ne plus dépendre des PDFs, et ne plus solliciter les serveurs de la DGFiP. 
On y a perdu en actualité, le Cadastre Etalab étant mis à jour par trimestre, 
et en précision dans les zones téléchargeables en effet, puisqu'on fonctionne 
par feuilles entières.
Mais on y a (je trouve) gagné en ergonomie puisqu'on peut rester dans JOSM  
quand on veut des données, via le plugin Cadastre actualisé par Vincent Privat. 
Plus besoin de sortir de JOSM, aller sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr, chercher sa 
commune, sélectionner sa zone, attendre, récupérer les données, les ouvrir dans 
JOSM. Je rejoins Jérôme là dessus.
Tout ça reste affaire de goût, je suis d'accord. En revanche, gardez à l'esprit 
la demande de la DGFiP. Le moins on se sert directement via les PDFs le plus on 
respecte leur souhait et leurs serveurs, ce qui serait élégant de notre part 
vus le service énorme qu'ils nous ont rendu dès 2008 (coucou DenisH) en nous 
autorisant à piocher dans leurs données, bien avant la vague de l'OpenData.
En complément, le service sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr n'est quasi plus 
maintenu. Il reste actif mais gagnerait à être coupé, tant vis-à-vis de la 
DGFiP que faute de mainteneurs.

vincent

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] import cadastre d'une petite zone

[Jérôme Amagat]

Le mar. 12 mai 2020 à 01:09, Donat ROBAUX  a écrit :

> Je rejoins ce que dit Eric
>
> Quand tu télécharges ton petit bout de planche cadastrale via l'onglet
> Josm,
> que ca t'en télécharge 4 planches alors que t'as rien demandé (mais que tu
> as le malheur d'être proche de la jointure) que le SEUL bâtiment de la
> planche que tu voulais n'est pas dans le calque téléchargé, ca énerve un
> peu. Et au-delà de ca, une débauche d'énergie puisque tu télécharges trop
> de
> données pour rien.
>
> En revanche, quand tu passes par l'ancienne méthode via
> cadastre.openstreetmap.fr, en selectionnant juste ta petite zone, tu as
> ton
> bâtiment. Franchement je ne comprends pas. Pourtant ce sont bien les mêmes
> données avec la même mise à jour?
>
> Je n'y connais pas grand chose mais je ne pense pas que la débauche
d’énergie soit dans ce sens, dans le premier cas c'est juste un
téléchargement dans l'autre il faut récupérer les données dans les pdf.
Moi je préfères la méthode via le plugin josm, par contre aujourd'hui ça ne
marche pas :(
Il faut prendre l'habitude de sélectionner une zone très petite pour ne
télécharger qu"une planche et faire attention de ne pas télécharger dans la
planche avec les données osm... La mise à jour trimestriel, ne m'a que très
rarement posé un problème. Sur cadastre.openstreetmap.fr c'est très long
pour avoir une commune en entier maintenant que les pdf sont plus petit.
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] import cadastre d'une petite zone

[Donat ROBAUX]

Je rejoins ce que dit Eric 

Quand tu télécharges ton petit bout de planche cadastrale via l'onglet Josm,
que ca t'en télécharge 4 planches alors que t'as rien demandé (mais que tu
as le malheur d'être proche de la jointure) que le SEUL bâtiment de la
planche que tu voulais n'est pas dans le calque téléchargé, ca énerve un
peu. Et au-delà de ca, une débauche d'énergie puisque tu télécharges trop de
données pour rien.

En revanche, quand tu passes par l'ancienne méthode via
cadastre.openstreetmap.fr, en selectionnant juste ta petite zone, tu as ton
bâtiment. Franchement je ne comprends pas. Pourtant ce sont bien les mêmes
données avec la même mise à jour?

VdCT, si tu as une explication rationnelle, je suis preneur.

Donat



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

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

[Talk-de] Webcam

[Rainer Dorsch via Talk-de]

Hallo,

hat openstreetmap ein tag für webcams, wie z.B. diese hier

https://kachelmannwetter.roundshot.com/sonnenbuehl/

?

Passen da nach https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
Key:Surveillance und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance

man_made=surveillance
surveillance=webcam
contact:webcam=https://kachelmannwetter.roundshot.com/sonnenbuehl/

Allerdings klingt Proposed on: 2008-07-08 nicht gerade ermutigend :-/

Gruß
Rainer

-- 
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[SK53]

Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe Leicestershire,
and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any reference to tehe parish
in the identifiers used in official documents. Instead all paths consist if
a letter followed by a number. I once tried to extract parishes from this
but I dont think the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil
Barnes will know more.

On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on OSM. I
suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system specific keys.

Jerry

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley,  wrote:

> In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message
> (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential
> mappers by having different formats in different counties. We have enough
> trouble already with path references variously being put in name, ref or
> local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish
> name,
> >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
> >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
> >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
> >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
> >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
> >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
> >then be meaningless.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-br] Convite para o mapeamento de Rio Branco com OpenStreetMap

[Lívia Degrossi]

Olá, pessoal, tudo bem?

Gostaria de convidar todos os membros da comunidade OpenStreetMap Brasil a
mapear a cidade de Rio Branco conosco! O mutirão de mapeamento com o
OpenStreetMap é ligado ao *Projeto Dados à Prova D'água*, uma pesquisa
internacional e multidisciplinar que trata da governança dos riscos de
inundações e alagações.

Todos nossos encontros serão realizados em formato online. A capacitação
para mapeadores iniciantes ocorrerá no dia *12 de maio (terça-feira)* *das
16h às 18h no horário de Brasília*.

Esse é o link para que vocês possam ter acesso à nossa sala de reunião
virtual:  https://zoom.us/j/98135209541. Lembrando que o link deve ser
acessado no dia e horário marcado.

Os mutirões de mapeamento ocorrerão nos dias *19/05*, *26/05* e *02/06* no
mesmo horário elencado acima.

Agradecemos antecipadamente pela participação. Fico à disposição caso
tenham qualquer dúvida.

Atenciosamente,
Lívia
-
*Dr. Lívia Castro Degrossi*
Postdoctoral researcher | National Centre for Disaster Monitoring and
Early-Warning (Cemaden)
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Evolution des règles pour les plages et la ligne de côte

[Djo_man via Talk-fr]

Bonsoir, 
Bien sur, il faut diffuser si personne n'y voit à redire. 
Djo man


 Yves P. a écrit 

>
>> J'ai eu un peu de temps ce week-end pour préciser à la fois l'état du tagging
>> pour les côtes et décrire les problématiques que cela soulève en terme de 
>> rendu de carte.
>> Il s'agit d'un PDF avec des photos aériennes commentées de JOSM et modifiées 
>> sur photoshop.
>> 
>> http://pc.cd/ssGrtalK 
>
>Un grand merci pour ce travail de "dingue" :)
>
>Il m'a permis (entre-autres) de comprendre la différence entre BDOrtho IGN et 
>Géolittoral.
>> ça ne résoudra pas la question du manque de vote pour cette dernière modif 
>> de wiki
>> mais permettra de comprendre ce qui est en jeu pour OSM voire pour 
>> OPENSEAMAP.
>> 
>Je peux transmettre le lien à Malcolm Herring (OpenSeaMap) ?
>Il ne parle pas le français, mais devrait suivre les illustrations :)
>> Le Mont Saint-Michel nous remerciera peut être...
>> 
>Le rendu standard montre l'estran :) mais comme une zone marcageuse :/
>Pas le carte basque : c'est marrée haute ;D
>
>Encore merci, Djo man :)
>
>__
>Yves
>___
>Talk-fr mailing list
>Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW archive

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 20:30, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote:
>> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the 
>> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive 
>> list/central location where we have stored information regarding which 
>> council has been approached and what was the answer (if any).
>>
>> It would make sense to save time (ours and councils) by not duplicating 
>> requests for information which might be already released.
>
> Have a look at https://rowmaps.com

That site is an excellent collection of all the data that's available,
with the added benefit of having it conveniently transformed into a
common format for downstream use. As far as OSM use is concerned  are
some licensing issues with some of the datasets there though, so you
need to be careful. Perhaps closer to what Bart was looking for is the
list I maintain:

https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/

Any corrections and additions to that page would be most welcome.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[Mike Baggaley]

In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message (preferably 
parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential mappers by having 
different formats in different counties. We have enough trouble already with 
path references variously being put in name, ref or local_ref instead of 
prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard.

Regards,
Mike

>Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name,
>type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
>Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
>continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
>something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
>an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
>line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
>then be meaningless.



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

Re: [Talk-it] [wikimedia-it] Diventa volontario WMI per le scuole e le università

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Ciao a tutti,

giro qui questa comunicazione arrivata in lista soci Wikimedia Italia.

È una richiesta di volontari per promuovere i progetti wiki/OSM su 
scuola e università. Qualcuno in lista talk-it potrebbe essere interessato.


Buona serata,

Ale


On 11/05/20 12:29, giovanna ranci wrote:


Cara socia e caro socio,

Wikimedia Italia è da sempre interessata a portare i progetti 
Wikimedia e OSM nel mondo della scuola e dell'università, insegnando a 
studenti e docenti a condividere le proprie conoscenze, confrontarsi 
con una communità collaborativa, sviluppare spirito critico e 
competenze digitali e informative.
L'anno scorso WMI ha intercettato oltre 1800 studenti e docenti, di 
cui 350 hanno svolto corsi pratici dove hanno inziato a sperimentarsi 
con i progetti wiki/OSM. Circa 3 docenti e studenti su 4 (tra quelli 
che hanno compilato il nostro questionario) si sono dichiarati 
soddisfatti o mediamente soddisfatti dell'esperienza.


Abbiamo fatto molto ma vogliamo e possiamo aumentare il nostro impatto 
sul mondo della scuola e dell'università. Per questo abbiamo bisogno 
di volontari disponibili a svolgere formazione a studenti dalla scuola 
primaria all'università, ai docenti e al personale universitario sui 
progetti wikimedia e OSM.
Un buon formatore unisce competenze tecniche, capacità didattiche e, 
possibilmente, anche passione per quel che insegna. Formatori non si 
nasce ma si può diventarlo, acquisendo le competenze necessarie e 
facendo pratica...anche con lo spirito "be bold" che ci contraddistingue!


Se questa sfida ti interessa e ti appassiona,
ti chiediamo di rispondere alla nostra dimostrazione di interesse QUI 
entro domenica 17 maggio.


C'è spazio per tutti, abbiamo bisogno di formatori in presenza e a 
distanza, di tutor disponibili a rivedere i contributi sui progetti 
wiki/OSM, di collaboratori sui materiali didattici e sulle metodologie 
didattiche, di docenti che possano darci consigli e possano fare da 
cassa di risonanza nelle proprie scuole e università.


Se sei interesstao a svolgere attività di formazione, non devi 
necessariamente possedere tutte le competenze necessarie, puoi anche 
non aver mai svolto attività didattica, puoi essere competente anche 
solo in un progetto wiki specifico, puoi essere un docente forte sulla 
didattica ma meno sulle wiki/OSM. Organizzeremo, infatti, momenti 
formativi specifici e percorsi di tutoraggio.


Sperando di creare un gruppo numeroso e motivato, ti chiedo di 
diffondere questo avviso a tutte le persone che credi possano essere 
interessate (non c'è bisogno che siano soci/socie di WMI).


Grazie e un caro saluto,

Giovanna Ranci


--


Giovanna Ranci Ortigosa
Project Manager Istruzione
Wikimedia Italia - Associazione per la diffusione della conoscenza libera
Via Bergognone 34 - 20144 Milano - Tel. 02.97677170
giovanna.ra...@wikimedia.it  |www.wikimedia.it

Utilizza e nostre risorse didattiche!
https://www.wikimedia.it/cosa-facciamo/progetti-le-scuole/risorse-didattiche/

Diventa anche tu WIKI-docente!
https://www.wikimedia.it/formazione-docenti/

DAI ALLA CONOSCENZA LIBERA UN NUOVO NOME. IL TUO.
Devolvi il 5x1000 a Wikimedia Italia:
nella tua dichiarazione dei redditi inserisci il Codice Fiscale 94039910156


___
Mailing list dell'associazione Wikimedia Italia
Invio messaggi in lista: associazi...@wikimedia.it
Configurazione utente: https://mailman.wikimedia.it/listinfo/associazione
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW archive

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote:
> Hello again,
> 
> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the
> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive
> list/central location where we have stored information regarding
> which council has been approached and what was the answer (if any).
> 
> It would make sense to save time (ours and councils) by not
> duplicating requests for information which might be already released.
> 
Hi Bart

Have a look at https://rowmaps.com

Cheers Phil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[nathan case]

> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a 
> map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at 
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and 
database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it 
was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in 
which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to 
get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the 
base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details 
from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to 
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them.

Understood but surely it is acceptable to draw the line in OSM making use of 
one's own GPS, or from visibility in the satellite layer(s) or OS OpenData, and 
then use the Council's map to get the prow_ref? Ordnance Survey do not have 
copyright on the prow ref and the LCC have made their prow refs open access. 

Or are you saying because one has to cross reference one's own drawing with the 
OS map, that OS own the copyright on the Council's data? Seems an over stretch?

I'm aware that this is somewhat diverging from the discussion. 

In the end, the council clearly doesn't seem to care - either approach is fine 
by them as they use both. We're the ones imposing a restriction on the data 
format for our own purposes. I will go with parish name, rather than ID if 
that's what's agreed, but unfortunately I cannot edit all the ones I have 
already added using the parish ID rather than name (happy for them to be auto 
edited using the lookup table Tony has shared).

Cheers.



-Original Message-
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)  
Sent: 11 May 2020 15:49
To: talk-gb 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have 
> released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to 
> produce.
>
> It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped 
> path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map.

Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a 
map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and 
database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it 
was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in 
which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to 
get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the 
base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details 
from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to 
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them.

What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from Lancashire. 
As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and names. It's up to 
whoever renders them what to show as labels.
Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool authors 
will follow that in what they display to mappers.

> It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even 
> for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref 
> data to OSM.)

Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is agreed. So 
that should be two common sources of data for mappers to use.

Best wishes,

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-se] Hur justera höjdprofil för vandringsled - rutt med "oordnade" delar

[Hartwig Alpers]

On 11.05.20 20:04, Daniel Westergren wrote:
Ok. Det verkar dock inte som att type=superroute används särskilt ofta 
i praktiken, utan kort och gott type=route, även för parent relations.


Kanske, men det måste inte vara korrekt för det.


T.ex. Skåneleden, Bohusleden, North Sea Trail osv.

Spelar det i praktiken någon roll om en super-relation taggas med 
superroute istället för route?


En relation av type=route innehåller verkliga vägar, en relation av 
type=superroute innehåller relationer, det är ju nu en viss skillnad. 
Att blanda ihop det så att type=route kan bestå av vägar eller av 
relaioner (tom av samma typ) känns inte så bra.


Jag skulle rekommendera att använda superroute för den överordnade 
relationen.


Hälsningar
Hartwig


superroute verkar inte vara särskilt vanligt, bara 874 type=superroute 
i hela världen...


/Daniel

Den mån 11 maj 2020 kl 18:52 skrev Hartwig Alpers >:


Hej!

On 10.05.20 14:16, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>
> Huddingeleden är nu taggad som lwn, men bör i högsta grad vara rwn,
> alltså regionalt vandringsnätverk. Den må bara sträcka sig inom
> Huddinge kommun, men är av betydelse utanför kommunens gränser
och av
> betydande längd. Jag kan fixa det lite snabbt.

Det är OK för mig.
>
> Och en fråga om superrelationer och vandringsleder. Om man gör en
> huvudrelation för hela vandringsleden och en underrelation för
> huvudsträckningen och en annan för avstickare, eller en
underrelation
> för varje etapp, bör då huvudrelationen taggas som
> superrelation (alltså type=route_master)? Dvs. en huvudrelation är
> alltid att betrakta som superrelation?
Vad jag skrev om "route_master" var faktiskt fel.
route_master tillhör busslinier och sånt, för vandringsleder är det
type=superroute som gäller.

Om du vill sammanfatta flera etapper av en större led så är det
"type=superroute" för den sammanfattande relationen.

Mvh
Hartwig


>
> Jag behöver nog i så fall korrigera t.ex. Utvandrarleden,
> Sigfridsleden, Torsåsleden mm.
>
> MVH /Daniel W
>
>
> Hej!
>
> En gång till, men nu till hela mailinglist:
>
> En stig är två gånger med i relationen:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147671979
> Dessutom finns husnummer 109 på Myrstuguvägen med i relationen (som
> förmodligen inte har något att göra med vandringsleden).
>
> "Superrelationen" är av fel typ, ska vara "type=route_master" (i
st. f.
> "type=route") och "route=hiking" ska vara "route_master=hiking".
>
> Bästa metoden att justera ordningen på en relations medlemmar är att
> använda JOSM, där det är bara ett musklick.
>
> Om du vill kann jag försöka fix problemet -- säg bara till.
>
> Hartwig
>
>
> On 24.04.20 19:52, M Branting wrote:
> >//>/Hej />//>/Jag har avslutat uppläggningen av vandringsleden
Huddingeleden (en />/superrelation) söder om Stockholm, men vill
nu få höjdprofilen i />/waymarked trails att fungera, och tänkte
ta delsträcka efter />/delsträcka. Det tycks vara besvärligare än
vad jag trodde. Jag har />/ändrat riktning för alla stigar och
vägar i delsträcka 1 men problemen />/kvarstår. Det krävs tydligen
att man även ändrar ordningen på delarna />/som leden skapats med.
/>//>/Vilken är den bästa metoden att justera ordningen på en leds
delar, />/utan att behöva ”lägga upp alla delar manuellt” en gång
till? />//>/Länk till delsträcka 1
/>/https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=5973832
/>//>/Mikael Branting />//>/Skickades från E-post
 />/för Windows 10
/>//>//>/___
/>/Talk-se mailing list />/Talk-se at openstreetmap.org

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


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


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



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

[Talk-GB] PRoW archive

[BD]

Hello again,   I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request 
the information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive 
list/central location where we have stored information regarding which council 
has been approached and what was the answer (if any).   It would make sense to 
save time (ours and councils) by not duplicating requests for information which 
might be already released.   cheers,  Bart
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Long live OSM :)

[BD]

Hi all,   I see the OSM as a great project, with fabulous community and I trust 
that it will last.   In the past few weeks Ive created four or five 
photobooks (photo albums with printed pages) and included QR codes with OSM 
links to describe locations. I hope that the map will survive many years and in 
the future my family will be able to refer to those links and recall where 
weve been.   Long live OSM!   Cheers, Bart :)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Référencement, cartes uMap

[Pierre Béland via Talk-fr]

Vincent Bergeot a écrit:> sans doute à ajouter sur 
https://github.com/umap-project/umap/ ? 

C'est fait, mercihttps://github.com/umap-project/umap/issues/798 
Pierre 

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

Re: [Talk-se] Hur justera höjdprofil för vandringsled - rutt med "oordnade" delar

[Daniel Westergren]

Ok. Det verkar dock inte som att type=superroute används särskilt ofta i
praktiken, utan kort och gott type=route, även för parent relations. T.ex.
Skåneleden, Bohusleden, North Sea Trail osv.

Spelar det i praktiken någon roll om en super-relation taggas med
superroute istället för route? superroute verkar inte vara särskilt
vanligt, bara 874 type=superroute i hela världen...

/Daniel

Den mån 11 maj 2020 kl 18:52 skrev Hartwig Alpers :

> Hej!
>
> On 10.05.20 14:16, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> >
> > Huddingeleden är nu taggad som lwn, men bör i högsta grad vara rwn,
> > alltså regionalt vandringsnätverk. Den må bara sträcka sig inom
> > Huddinge kommun, men är av betydelse utanför kommunens gränser och av
> > betydande längd. Jag kan fixa det lite snabbt.
>
> Det är OK för mig.
> >
> > Och en fråga om superrelationer och vandringsleder. Om man gör en
> > huvudrelation för hela vandringsleden och en underrelation för
> > huvudsträckningen och en annan för avstickare, eller en underrelation
> > för varje etapp, bör då huvudrelationen taggas som
> > superrelation (alltså type=route_master)? Dvs. en huvudrelation är
> > alltid att betrakta som superrelation?
> Vad jag skrev om "route_master" var faktiskt fel.
> route_master tillhör busslinier och sånt, för vandringsleder är det
> type=superroute som gäller.
>
> Om du vill sammanfatta flera etapper av en större led så är det
> "type=superroute" för den sammanfattande relationen.
>
> Mvh
> Hartwig
>
>
> >
> > Jag behöver nog i så fall korrigera t.ex. Utvandrarleden,
> > Sigfridsleden, Torsåsleden mm.
> >
> > MVH /Daniel W
> >
> >
> > Hej!
> >
> > En gång till, men nu till hela mailinglist:
> >
> > En stig är två gånger med i relationen:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147671979
> > Dessutom finns husnummer 109 på Myrstuguvägen med i relationen (som
> > förmodligen inte har något att göra med vandringsleden).
> >
> > "Superrelationen" är av fel typ, ska vara "type=route_master" (i st. f.
> > "type=route") och "route=hiking" ska vara "route_master=hiking".
> >
> > Bästa metoden att justera ordningen på en relations medlemmar är att
> > använda JOSM, där det är bara ett musklick.
> >
> > Om du vill kann jag försöka fix problemet -- säg bara till.
> >
> > Hartwig
> >
> >
> > On 24.04.20 19:52, M Branting wrote:
> > >//>/Hej />//>/Jag har avslutat uppläggningen av vandringsleden
> Huddingeleden (en />/superrelation) söder om Stockholm, men vill nu få
> höjdprofilen i />/waymarked trails att fungera, och tänkte ta delsträcka
> efter />/delsträcka. Det tycks vara besvärligare än vad jag trodde. Jag har
> />/ändrat riktning för alla stigar och vägar i delsträcka 1 men problemen
> />/kvarstår. Det krävs tydligen att man även ändrar ordningen på delarna
> />/som leden skapats med. />//>/Vilken är den bästa metoden att justera
> ordningen på en leds delar, />/utan att behöva ”lägga upp alla delar
> manuellt” en gång till? />//>/Länk till delsträcka 1 />/
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=5973832 />//>/Mikael
> Branting />//>/Skickades från E-post <
> https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> />/för Windows 10
> />//>//>/___ />/Talk-se mailing
> list />/Talk-se at openstreetmap.org
> >  />/
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se /
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-se mailing list
> > Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name,
type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
then be meaningless.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 15:50 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC
> have released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy
> to produce.
> >
> > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an
> unmapped path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s
> map.
>
> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make
> use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map
> at
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
> is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright
> and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's
> likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an
> Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be
> used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the
> overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before
> using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the
> OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to
> be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful
> around them.
>
> What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from
> Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and
> names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels.
> Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool
> authors will follow that in what they display to mappers.
>
> > It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even
> for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data
> to OSM.)
>
> Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
> Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is
> agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to
> use.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Référencement, cartes uMap

[Vincent Bergeot]

Le 11/05/2020 à 18:29, Pierre Béland via Talk-fr a écrit :
Il existe plusieurs cartes uMap portant sur la thématique Covid-19.  
Mais j'observe qu'elles sont mal référencées. En recherchant pour mots 
clés [umap  Covid-19], j'observe effectivement peu ou pas de 
référencement des cartes uMap.


Recherche umap Covid-19

Qwant.com et Bing : aucun résultat
Google : Quelques pages, et description peu pertinente

Ces problèmes pourraient facilement être corrigés à mon avis en 
ajoutant des balises dans les pages uMap.


Il serait facile d'ajouter à la page HTML la balise name="description"> en y insérant la description contenue dans chacune 
des cartes.  L'utilisation de moteurs de recherche fournirait une 
description plus claire de la carte et retournerait plus de résultats 
pertinents.


Bonjour Pierre,

sans doute à ajouter sur https://github.com/umap-project/umap/ ?

Bonne journée

--

Vincent Bergeot

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

Re: [Talk-se] Hur justera höjdprofil för vandringsled - rutt med "oordnade" delar

[Hartwig Alpers]

Hej!

On 10.05.20 14:16, Daniel Westergren wrote:


Huddingeleden är nu taggad som lwn, men bör i högsta grad vara rwn, 
alltså regionalt vandringsnätverk. Den må bara sträcka sig inom 
Huddinge kommun, men är av betydelse utanför kommunens gränser och av 
betydande längd. Jag kan fixa det lite snabbt.


Det är OK för mig.


Och en fråga om superrelationer och vandringsleder. Om man gör en 
huvudrelation för hela vandringsleden och en underrelation för 
huvudsträckningen och en annan för avstickare, eller en underrelation 
för varje etapp, bör då huvudrelationen taggas som 
superrelation (alltså type=route_master)? Dvs. en huvudrelation är 
alltid att betrakta som superrelation?

Vad jag skrev om "route_master" var faktiskt fel.
route_master tillhör busslinier och sånt, för vandringsleder är det 
type=superroute som gäller.


Om du vill sammanfatta flera etapper av en större led så är det 
"type=superroute" för den sammanfattande relationen.


Mvh
Hartwig




Jag behöver nog i så fall korrigera t.ex. Utvandrarleden, 
Sigfridsleden, Torsåsleden mm.


MVH /Daniel W


Hej!

En gång till, men nu till hela mailinglist:

En stig är två gånger med i relationen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147671979
Dessutom finns husnummer 109 på Myrstuguvägen med i relationen (som
förmodligen inte har något att göra med vandringsleden).

"Superrelationen" är av fel typ, ska vara "type=route_master" (i st. f.
"type=route") och "route=hiking" ska vara "route_master=hiking".

Bästa metoden att justera ordningen på en relations medlemmar är att
använda JOSM, där det är bara ett musklick.

Om du vill kann jag försöka fix problemet -- säg bara till.

Hartwig


On 24.04.20 19:52, M Branting wrote:
>//>/Hej />//>/Jag har avslutat uppläggningen av vandringsleden Huddingeleden (en />/superrelation) söder om Stockholm, men vill nu få höjdprofilen i />/waymarked trails att fungera, och tänkte ta delsträcka efter />/delsträcka. Det tycks vara besvärligare än vad jag trodde. Jag har />/ändrat riktning för alla stigar och vägar i delsträcka 1 men problemen />/kvarstår. Det krävs tydligen att man även ändrar ordningen på delarna />/som leden skapats med. />//>/Vilken är den bästa metoden att justera ordningen på en leds delar, />/utan att behöva ”lägga upp alla delar manuellt” en gång till? />//>/Länk till delsträcka 1 />/https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=5973832 />//>/Mikael Branting />//>/Skickades från E-post  />/för Windows 10 />//>//>/___ />/Talk-se mailing list />/Talk-se at openstreetmap.org 
 />/https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se /




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



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

[OSM-talk-fr] Référencement, cartes uMap

[Pierre Béland via Talk-fr]

Il existe plusieurs cartes uMap portant sur la thématique Covid-19.  Mais 
j'observe qu'elles sont mal référencées. En recherchant pour mots clés [umap  
Covid-19], j'observe effectivement peu ou pas de référencement des cartes uMap.
Recherche umap  Covid-19
Qwant.com et Bing : aucun résultat
Google : Quelques pages, et description peu pertinente

Ces problèmes pourraient facilement être corrigés à mon avis en ajoutant des 
balises dans les pages uMap.
Il serait facile d'ajouter à la page HTML la balise  
en y insérant la description contenue dans chacune des cartes.  L'utilisation 
de moteurs de recherche fournirait une description plus claire de la carte et 
retournerait plus de résultats pertinents.
 
Pierre 
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Bosch eBike Charging Stations in France

[Marc M.]

Bonjour,

Le 11.05.20 à 16:46, Alznauer Florian (EB/MKB2) via Talk-fr a écrit :
> Serait-il possible / acceptable d’importer les positions des stations de
> recharge Bosch manuellement, une par une directement dans OSM sans
> utiliser un import de masse ? Cela nous permettrait de positionner les
> Powerstations à l'endroit précis où elles se trouvent sans utiliser la
> géolocalisation de Google ou les coordonnées GPS du fichier Excel que
> chaque lieu ou partenaire nous a fourni avec l’emplacement exact de la
> borne de recharge.

comment allez-vous les positionner sans utiliser la géolocalisation ?
how are you going to position them without using geolocation?

Cordialement,
Marc

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Evolution des règles pour les plages et la ligne de côte

[Yves P.]

> J'ai eu un peu de temps ce week-end pour préciser à la fois l'état du tagging
> pour les côtes et décrire les problématiques que cela soulève en terme de 
> rendu de carte.
> Il s'agit d'un PDF avec des photos aériennes commentées de JOSM et modifiées 
> sur photoshop.
> 
> http://pc.cd/ssGrtalK 

Un grand merci pour ce travail de "dingue" :)

Il m'a permis (entre-autres) de comprendre la différence entre BDOrtho IGN et 
Géolittoral.
> ça ne résoudra pas la question du manque de vote pour cette dernière modif de 
> wiki
> mais permettra de comprendre ce qui est en jeu pour OSM voire pour OPENSEAMAP.
> 
Je peux transmettre le lien à Malcolm Herring (OpenSeaMap) ?
Il ne parle pas le français, mais devrait suivre les illustrations :)
> Le Mont Saint-Michel nous remerciera peut être...
> 
Le rendu standard montre l'estran :) mais comme une zone marcageuse :/
Pas le carte basque : c'est marrée haute ;D

Encore merci, Djo man :)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have 
> released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to 
> produce.
>
> It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped 
> path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map.

Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make
use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map
at 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright
and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's
likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an
Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be
used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the
overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before
using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the
OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful
around them.

What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from
Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and
names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels.
Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool
authors will follow that in what they display to mappers.

> It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for 
> me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to 
> OSM.)

Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is
agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to
use.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Bosch eBike Charging Stations in France

[Alznauer Florian (EB/MKB2) via Talk-fr]

Dear OSM-Community,

I asked my co-worker to translate my message / question: (feel free to answer 
in French, Thanks)

Chère communauté OSM,

Merci beaucoup pour vos commentaires et retours concernant notre initiative de 
téléchargement dans OSM des positions et coordonnées GPS des stations de 
recharge pour les vélos électriques équipés d’une motorisations Bosch eBike 
(soit plus de 80 fabricants/marques de cycle en Europe).

Concernant votre retour d'information :

1.   Nous aimerions ajouter que le principe de ces stations de recharge 
est similaire au concept des Surchargeurs Tesla qu’on retrouve aux États-Unis 
sur OSM.

2.   En ce qui concerne votre retour d'information sur l'obtention des 
données de géolocalisation : Serait-il possible / acceptable d’importer les 
positions des stations de recharge Bosch manuellement, une par une directement 
dans OSM sans utiliser un import de masse ? Cela nous permettrait de 
positionner les Powerstations à l'endroit précis où elles se trouvent sans 
utiliser la géolocalisation de Google ou les coordonnées GPS du fichier Excel 
que chaque lieu ou partenaire nous a fourni avec l’emplacement exact de la 
borne de recharge.

Merci pour votre aide.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Florian Alznauer

eBike Systems, Marketing, Communication, Branding (EB/MKB)
Robert Bosch GmbH | Gerhard-Kindler-Straße 3 | 72770 Reutlingen | GERMANY | 
www.bosch.com
Tel. +49 7121 35-30134 | 
florian.alzna...@de.bosch.com

Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Franz Fehrenbach; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Volkmar 
Denner,
Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer, Dr. Michael Bolle, Dr. Christian Fischer, 
Dr. Stefan Hartung,
Dr. Markus Heyn, Harald Kröger, Christoph Kübel, Rolf Najork, Uwe Raschke, 
Peter Tyroller
​
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Evolution des règles pour les plages et la ligne de côte

[Georges Dutreix via Talk-fr]

Le 11/05/2020 à 14:48, djo_man via Talk-fr a écrit :
Il s'agit d'un PDF avec des photos aériennes commentées de JOSM et 
modifiées sur photoshop.


http://pc.cd/ssGrtalK

Bonjour,

Merci pour ce document, qui m'a clarifié les différences entre 
boundary=administrative et natural=coastline, etc.
Et aussi le pourquoi de rendus bizarres en ce moment sur OSM. On va 
patienter donc ...


C'est vrai qu'une page wiki "Comment cartographier la côte" (et tous ses 
éléments) serait sympa, parce que si on veut ne pas toucher les grandes 
relations, il n'est pas évident de savoir où délimiter une plage.





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

Re: [Talk-it] Tag : lcn yes

[Gabriele Sani via Talk-it]

Personalmente, sia per trekking che per mtb, se ho necessita' di usare quel 
tipo di tag lo metto sempre in network, quindi in una relazione creata ad hoc 
(anche se composta solo da un paio di way).

Gabriele Sani

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

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, May 11, 2020 3:59 PM, Loris Aguzzoli  
wrote:

>
>
> Tre mesi fa circa, aggiungendo un Tag lcn yes , nel tratto interessato , 
> nella schermata di mappa ciclabile,
>
> veniva evidenziato in celeste.  Chiedo , è un tag che non si può usare in 
> quel modo, è cambiato qualcosa.
>
> Posso sopperire naturalmente il problema,  aggiungendo una relazione.
>
> Grazie della collaborazione
>
> Loris
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76186562___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-it] Tag : lcn yes

[Loris Aguzzoli]

  Tre mesi fa circa, aggiungendo un Tag lcn yes , nel tratto interessato , nella schermata di mappa ciclabile,veniva evidenziato in celeste.  Chiedo , è un tag che non si può usare in quel modo, è cambiato qualcosa.Posso sopperire naturalmente il problema,  aggiungendo una relazione.  Grazie della collaborazioneLoris   https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76186562

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[nathan case]

Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have 
released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to 
produce.

It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped 
path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. That map 
uses parish ID not parish name (i.e. it shows Label2). It is then complicated 
that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for me, parish IDs are the most 
straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to OSM.)

So, as I said, my view is that Parish name and Parish ID should be both 
acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve 
the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM
To: nathan case ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish Number, 
Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.

The first entry in the kml file is


33
120
16470.
Footpath
18.
yes
BURNLEY
HAPTON
12.
7.
FP 18
12-7-FP 18
http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7
FP
120
768.56943096600

  -2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 -2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 -2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 
...

The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 18. Some 
people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab for display - 
but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.

I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of Parish 
Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in labelling PROW's 
in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to Chorley!). I understand 
that Rob will make that experimental map widely available if people agree to 
the Lancashire format, as his tool also checks for well formed PROW refs, 
correct lengths, and completeness of implementation of the PROW set per parish.

We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use it, and 
only the ref is stopping that.

Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:
I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of 
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used 
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and 
thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers 
to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is 
not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.

Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert 
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.

The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the 
written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order 
sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.

Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have 
used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.

Regards

TonyS999
On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's 
preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how 
the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob 
noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even 
within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at 
variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the 
definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references.

Kind regards,

Adam




___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Evolution des règles pour les plages et la ligne de côte

[djo_man via Talk-fr]

  
  
Bonjour, 


J'ai eu un peu de temps ce week-end
  pour préciser à la fois l'état du tagging
  pour les côtes et décrire les problématiques que cela soulève en
  terme de rendu de carte.
  Il s'agit d'un PDF avec des photos aériennes commentées de JOSM et
  modifiées sur photoshop.



http://pc.cd/ssGrtalK


  ça ne résoudra pas la question du manque de vote pour cette
dernière modif de wiki
mais permettra de comprendre ce qui est en jeu pour OSM voire
pour OPENSEAMAP.
  Le Mont Saint-Michel nous remerciera peut être...
  Djo man
  



Le 07/05/2020 à 10:06, Yves P. a
  écrit :


  Salut,

Votre discussion est assez technique ;)

Pouvez-vous mettre un lien sur un schéma, une photo aérienne, le(s) rendu(s) et si possible une carte marine pour qu'on puisse suivre ?
(et tant qu'à faire ne pas cartographier n'importe quoi)

Merci,

__
Yves


  
Des fois certains mapper vont même jusqu'à dessiner ses zones encore plus bas que la ligne de basse mer car avec les belles images aériennes et une eau claire on en voit tres bien les contours. C'est presque un autre probleme mais explique bien que l'enchainement de ses zones ressemble à un geant code barre le long des côtes avec beach et bare_rock qui s'enchaînent.

  
  un exemple ici stp :)



___
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-br] Mapatona "Mapeando Rio Branco com o OpenStreetMap"

[Lívia Degrossi]

Olá, pessoal.

Eu faço parte de um projeto internacional chamado Dados à Prova D'água e
amanhã (terça-feira, dia 12/05) realizaremos uma capacitação sobre
mapeamento usando OpenStreetMap, como parte da chamada "Mapeando Rio Branco
com o OpenStreetMap"  (
https://twitter.com/waterproof_data/status/1255963265244553216).  Para a
capacitação, os organizadores do evento elaboraram um tutorial sobre o
OpenStreetMap, o qual eu compartilho em anexo.

Nas três terças-feiras subsequentes, isto é, dias 19/05, 26/05 e 02/06, nós
realizaremos mutirões de mapeamento da cidade de Rio Branco. Como
integrante da organização, eu gostaria de convidar a comunidade OSM Brasil
a nos ajudar na validação do mapeamento realizado. Infelizmente, nós
contamos com poucos mapeadores experientes para realizar essa tarefa.

Seguindo a orientação do Sérgio, vocês poderão encontrar todas as
informações sobre o mapeamento nos seguintes links:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Rio_Branco

https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/6124

Muito obrigada.
Lívia

-
*Dr. Lívia Castro Degrossi*
Postdoctoral researcher | National Centre for Disaster Monitoring and
Early-Warning (Cemaden)




On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:57 AM Lívia Degrossi 
wrote:

> Muito obrigada pelas informações detalhadas, Sérgio.
>
> A organização do evento realizará todo o procedimento até o final dessa
> semana. Eu entrarei em contato novamente por meio da lista para divulgar a
> mapatona.
>
> At.te,
> Lívia
> -
> *Dr. Lívia Castro Degrossi*
> Postdoctoral researcher | National Centre for Disaster Monitoring and
> Early-Warning (Cemaden)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:54 AM Sérgio V.  wrote:
>
>> Olá Lívia, obrigado por responder.
>> Sim, pode escrever em privado, mas não terei nada especial a explicar, o
>> procedimento todo já está nos links que coloquei abaixo, tem em várias
>> línguas:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Process
>>
>> Basicamente criar uma wiki e registar as informações ali, e publicar o
>> link aqui mesmo nesta lista de e-mail que é o canal oficial do OSM-Brasil.
>> A wiki contento o básico para informar:
>> -onde serão as áreas a ser mapeadas (municípios, bairros, o que for);
>> -o que se pretende mapear em tags próprias do OSM (waterways, highways,
>> buildings, POIs, etc);
>> -como será o controle de qualidade de novas edições feitas;
>> -Contato dos organizadores responsáveis, suas contas no OSM, para
>> eventuais contatos;
>> -se houver, eventuais fontes de dados externos que seriam usadas e sua
>> licença própria ao OSM.
>>
>> Ali também tem um exemplo de wiki para registro de mapatona:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Example_City_Lamppost_Mapping
>>
>> Qualquer dúvida, volte a contatar. Parabéns pela inciativa.
>> Att.,
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
>>
>> --
>> *De:* Lívia Degrossi 
>> *Enviado:* segunda-feira, 4 de maio de 2020 09:49
>> *Para:* OpenStreetMap no Brasil 
>> *Assunto:* Re: [Talk-br] Mapatona "Mapeando Rio Branco com o
>> OpenStreetMap"
>>
>> Olá, Sérgio.
>>
>> Eu estou participando da organização e posso te passar mais informações.
>>
>> Primeiramente, eu peço desculpas por não termos adicionado a mapatona na
>> wiki do OSM, nós não tínhamos conhecimento sobre isso. Eu poderia escrever
>> para você em privado para que você me explique os procedimentos corretos?
>>
>> At.te,
>> Lívia
>> -
>> *Dr. Lívia Castro Degrossi*
>> Postdoctoral researcher | National Centre for Disaster Monitoring and
>> Early-Warning (Cemaden)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:47 PM Sérgio V.  wrote:
>>
>> Olá pessoal, saudações covídicas,
>> achei muito interessante o projeto
>> "Mapeando Rio Branco com o OpenStreetMap"
>>
>> https://twitter.com/waterproof_data/status/1255963265244553216
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc3CthaGEMMhaObJKfjYRHvUp899BtpKedNDAwzB1BRJ-KdiQ/viewform
>>
>>
>> Pedi informações aos organizadores mas não obtive resposta ainda.
>> Vi a mensagem no tuiter do OpenStreetMapBR
>> https://twitter.com/OpenStreetMapBR/status/1256189877055639552?s=20
>>
>> Queria saber antecipadamente o que será mapeado, e de que forma poderia
>> colaborar, se fecha com minhas disponibilidades e interesses.
>> Procurei mais informações mas não encontrei.
>> Nem no talk-br.
>> Só fornecem se se cadastrar, no link:
>> "...A organização enviará o material de apoio para o e-mail dos
>> inscritos..."
>>
>> Conforme as diretrizes do OSM,
>> para mapatonas e atividades de edições organizadas em grupos:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
>> e
>> 

[Talk-de] Einladung zum SmartDevelopmentHack 14/15. Mai mit Trufi

[Christoph Hanser]

Hallo zusammen,

wer möchte kann gerne beim SmartDevelopmentHack am 14/15. Mai mitmachen.

Wir von Trufi werden Features entwickeln, die social distancing in Bussen
vereinfachen sollen.

Trufi ist eine ÖPNV-App für Entwicklungsländer und läuft in Kolumbien,
Bolivien, Äthiopien und Ghana.

Mapper, Entwickler, Projektmanager, OSM Experten u.v.m. werden gebraucht.

Akut auch jemand, der die Arbeit mit unseren Partnerstädten koordiniert -
optimalerweise mit Background als Entwicklungshelfer. Gerne weiterleiten!

Mehr Infos auf
https://www.trufi-association.org/plan-social-distancing-on-public-transport-with-the-trufi-app/
Rückfragen sonst gerne direkt an mich

Viele Grüße,
Christoph




Christoph Hanser
Hans-Sander-Str. 3, 21107 Hamburg, 0163/4791397
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [talk-cz] was:highway=primary

[Jan Macura]

Ahoj

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 06:51,  wrote:

> Obcas mivali stavari na svych nastenkach mezi papiry z projektu obrazek
> chlapecka na nocniku s napisem "zadna prace neni skoncena, dokud neni
> papirove vyrizena". Ten clovek, co to menil neni zjevne stavar :-)
>

A nebo možná je, ale uvědomuje si ten rozdíl mezi státním aparátem a OSM.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Sorry, crossposted with Tony there

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
> disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
> available under an open licence (OGL v3)
> https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
> then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
> that each county follows a common format.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case  wrote:
>
>> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>>
>>
>>
>> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in
>> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is
>> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
>> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic
>> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially
>> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert
>> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tony OSM 
>> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights
>> of Way - legal vs reality)
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the
>> written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order
>> sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.
>>
>> Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and
>> I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> TonyS999
>>
>> On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
>> Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
>> reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
>> communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
>> with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the
>> format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I
>> can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire
>> use any such references.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
available under an open licence (OGL v3)
https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
that each county follows a common format.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case  wrote:

> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>
>
>
> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in
> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is
> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic
> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially
> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.
>
>
>
> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert
> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
>
>
>
> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony OSM 
> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights
> of Way - legal vs reality)
>
>
>
> I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the
> written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order
> sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.
>
> Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I
> have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.
>
> Regards
>
> TonyS999
>
> On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
> Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
> reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
> communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
> with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the
> format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I
> can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire
> use any such references.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-GB mailing list
>
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-br] Importação de edifícios Fortaleza/CE

[Matheus Gomes]

Olá pessoal,

Espero que todos estejam bem nesse período tão difícil!

Me chamo Matheus (usuário matheusgomesms) e faço edições há alguns anos. 
Discuti recentemente com o pessoal do grupo OSM Ceará no Telegram, e estamos 
com planos de realizar uma importação dos edifícios de Fortaleza.

Está tudo documentado na wiki 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Fortaleza/Importa%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_Edif%C3%ADcios_PMF),
 mas em resumo a prefeitura disponibiliza o SHP dos edifícios da cidade 
inteira, com a altura somente. Fizemos alguns testes e os dados são muito bons, 
mas não será possível, ao meu entendimento, uma importação massiva. Se 
necessita de uma boa dose de cuidado e ajustes antes de subir pro OSM.

O Narcélio (narceliodesa) estava desenvolvendo um algoritmo para o QGIS que 
desse uma preparada melhor nos dados antes, mas não está 100% redondo ainda. De 
qualquer forma, já é possível realizar a importação com cuidado, de uma maneira 
mais ‘artesanal’.

Enfim, gostaria de saber da opinião de vocês e também receber sugestões/dicas 
para realizar essa importação, visto que aqui há muita gente experiente nesse 
tipo de assunto!

Att,
Matheus

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Tony OSM]

Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish 
Number, Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.


The first entry in the kml file is

    
        33
        120
        16470.
        Footpath
        18.
        yes
        BURNLEY
        HAPTON
        12.
        7.
        FP 18
        12-7-FP 18
        name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7

        FP
        120
        768.56943096600
    
-2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 
-2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 
-2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 ...


The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 
18. Some people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab 
for display - but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.


I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of 
Parish Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in 
labelling PROW's in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to 
Chorley!). I understand that Rob will make that experimental map widely 
available if people agree to the Lancashire format, as his tool also 
checks for well formed PROW refs, correct lengths, and completeness of 
implementation of the PROW set per parish.


We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use 
it, and only the ref is stopping that.


Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:


I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in 
place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID 
is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open 
data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would 
be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID 
with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) 
easily (openly?) available.


Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to 
convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly 
acceptable.


The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.

*From:*Tony OSM 
*Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public 
Rights of Way - legal vs reality)


I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc 
the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in 
that order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.


Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM 
and I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to 
understand it.


Regards

TonyS999

On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I
agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more
idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually
referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't
use the numeric references with any consistency even within its
own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at
variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither
the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such
references.

Kind regards,

Adam



___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org  

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[OSM-talk-ie] OpenStreetMap Ireland Microgrant Application

[Heikki Vesanto]

Hi all,

The OpenStreetMap Ireland board has put in an application for a microgrant
from OSMF.

The grant would be to support the ongoing OSM Ireland Buildings project.
Which we feel is a good focus in these times.

Let me know if you have any feedback or questions. As an OSM community
member you can also endorse the proposal, there is a section at the bottom
for "*Community members are encouraged to endorse your project request
here!*"

You can have a read over the proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Microgrants/Microgrants_2020/Proposal/OSM_Ireland_Buildings

-Heikki

-- 
*Heikki Vesanto*
Board Member / Secretary
OpenStreetMap Ireland CLG
CRO no. 638034
www.openstreetmap.ie
[image: cropped-os...@3x-270x250.png]
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[OSM-talk-fr] Robert Keller, Laurent Matheron et Pierre Guillou : Hitler sur table d'écoute

[Yves P.]

Bonjour,

Un documentaire très intéressant sur le "piratage" de liaison télécom entre 
Paris et Berlin est disponible en replay sur France 5 
.

Les pages wikipedia Robert Keller 
, Laurent Matheron 
 et Pierre Guillou 
 rendent hommage à ces résistants.

Malheureusement, il n'y a que très peu de liens entre les objets OSM et les 
objets wikipedia/wikidata.

Est-ce que les contributeurs locaux et/ou les amateurs d'histoire peuvent 
compléter ?

Pour ma part, j'ai rajouté la plaque en hommage à Pierre Guillou à Rennes :)
__
Yves

PS:
Ajout OpenPlaques et lien avec la photo, ajout de l'inscription dans Commons et 
ajout OSM.
Elle sera visible dans quelques heures sur historic.place 
,
 de même que la photo dans openplaques.org 
.

Pages wikipedia
Paris
Rue de l'Ingénieur-Robert-Keller 

Piscine Keller 
Tour Keller 
plaque commémorative 

Rennes
Category:Centre Pierre-Guillou 
. Façade du 
centre visible sur GSV 
,
 et plaque sur la vue 3D 

Objets OSM
Paris
Rue de l'Ingénieur Robert Keller (Relation 541733 
)
6, Rue de l'Ingénieur Robert Keller (Nœud 682420370 
)
Tour Keller (Chemin 115878685 )
Piscine Keller (Chemin 115878661 )
Noisy-le-Grand
Rue du Réseau Robert Keller (Chemin 300360502 
)
Dunkerque
Rue Pierre Guillou (Relation 4160543 
)
Allée Pierre Guillou (Chemin 310637211 
) et Aire 
Pierre Guillou (Chemin 310637210 
)
Saint-Brévin-les-Pins
Avenue Pierre Guillou (Chemin 537798149 
)
Rennes
Centre Pierre Guillou (Tout ou partie ? du chemin 80941896 
)
Plaque commémorative : Pierre Guillou(Nœud 7505930664 
)
Plonévez-Porzay
Square Pierre Guillou (Chemin 109304851 
)
Troyes
Rue Robert Keller (Chemin 68247930 
)
Lyon
plaque commémorative est apposée une plaque dans l'enceinte du centre 
Lyon-Sévigné de Orange, situé dans le 3e arrondissement de Lyon
Centre d'amplification des LSGD de Lyon-Tassin a été nommé Centre 
Laurent-Matheron
centre Lyon-Sévigné est rebaptisé Lyon-Sévigné-Matheron
Le Petit-Quevilly
Le nouveau bureau de poste porte son nom de Robert Keller. Une plaque y est 
apposée.
Cachan
Un lycée professionnel porte le nom de Robert Keller.___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[nathan case]

I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of 
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used 
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and 
thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers 
to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is 
not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.

Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert 
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.

The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the 
written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order 
sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.

Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have 
used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.

Regards

TonyS999
On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's 
preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how 
the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob 
noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even 
within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at 
variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the 
definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references.

Kind regards,

Adam



___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

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