Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Federico Cortese]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 23:31 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> anch'io mi sono stupito di fabbricati grossi mancanti (un Teatro di
> marionette), e di divisioni che non c'erano sulla mappa. Ed edifici che
> nella realtà sono crollati tanto tempo fa e ci sono solo i muri. Persino
> una strada sembra stare su una particella. Sappiamo di quando è questa
> versione?
>

La mappa del Catasto viene aggiornata ogni giorno, quindi quella che vedete
è sempre del giorno prima.
Non vi stupite, il Catasto è così perchè sta al singolo proprietario
aggiornare, molti non lo fanno finchè non sono costretti. Le PA (comuni,
province e enti vari) aggiornano ancora meno dei privati.
Inoltre ci sono situazioni dove per l'errore in un frazionamento, tutti i
successivi aggiornamenti sono sbagliati, con interi isolati sfalsati, case
accatastate sulle strade, ecc.
Quindi non vi fidate di quelle mappe, a livello geometrico sono indicative,
servono per altri scopi.
Ormai bisognerebbe rifare le mappe di impianto, in Trentino lo stanno
facendo (
http://www.catasto.provincia.tn.it/attivita_cartografica/Formazione_cartografia_numerica/),
ma in Italia non se ne parla.
Ciao,
Federico
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Andrew Harvey]

Abandoned is a tricky concept for a path, what make is abandoned? If there
is a sign up saying track closed or keep out for re-vegetation it's clear,
but otherwise it's less clear.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 01:36, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it
> altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to
> something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".
>

If there is still some evidence on the ground, I think using the lifecycle
prefix is preferable because usually it takes a few years for a path to be
completely revegetated and provides a more accurate picture of what's
happening on the ground and helps data consumers track the it through the
different states.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:06, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I use:
> disused:highway=path/footway/etc
> or
> abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc
>

I have used that too where it really is closed via signage, but if it's
just overgrown from lack of use, it could still be in active use.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:55, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> Indeed - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown has some usage
>

I didn't know about that, usually I've just been adding
description=overgrown, but that tag is better. It's in need of some
discussion and documentation though to make it not subjective.

I suggest overgrown=yes would apply if you're constantly brushing against
the vegetation (not just occasionally but to the the point that you're
almost always in contact with the vegetation for the whole segment).

Then light if it has negligible affect on walking pace, dense if it slows
you down considerably.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 25. Sept. 2020 um 10:03 Uhr schrieb Lorenzo Stucchi <
lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>:

> Ad una occhiata veloce ho trovato qualche piccolo errore nella mappa del
> catasto nella mia zona con dati vecchi e non aggiornati.
>


anch'io mi sono stupito di fabbricati grossi mancanti (un Teatro di
marionette), e di divisioni che non c'erano sulla mappa. Ed edifici che
nella realtà sono crollati tanto tempo fa e ci sono solo i muri. Persino
una strada sembra stare su una particella. Sappiamo di quando è questa
versione?

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

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

[Ian Dees]

Hi everyone on this thread. It seems conversation has gotten way off topic
and heated, so I put a moderation hold on the list and won't let this
thread through for 24 hours or so.

Thanks,
Ian
talk-us moderator
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[stevea]

James Umbanhowar  wrote:
> Something else to consider is that even though there is a perimeter for
> a fire, there can be highly variable impacts on the landcover within
> the perimeter.
> Some areas may have not burned, other areas only burned
> the understory, some with limited burning of trees and other with full
> tree killing canopy burns.  The effects of these will also depend on
> the specific species that burn.  So to convert and entire area inside a
> fire perimeter to one land cover without extensive surveying would
> likely be in error.  

(Please take further discussion of this thread to the tagging list
https://lists.osm.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-September/055496.html ).

James, this is all well known and part of the intended solution (to better map) 
here, thank you for pointing this out.

There is no intention to "convert an entire area" inside of the fire perimeter, 
rather careful RE-mapping of SELECTED areas which have ACTUALLY burned (e.g. a 
natural=wood area is shrunk to where trees remain and "no data" or "blank map" 
is what remains of the burned area).  This will likely best emerge when newer 
imagery data become available.

> It seems as though the perimeter tag is the most verifiable at this point.

Yes, to be clear:  this fire=perimeter polygon intends to delineate the area 
where, as they become available, newer imagery data which display fire damage 
should be used to update the map.  In short, the polygon conveys "here is the 
EXTENT of the area that burned:  while it isn't yet clear whether existing 
landcover natural=* tags need to be altered, that is likely, as there was a 
major fire inside of these bounds."  That's all, really.  This is a 140 square 
mile rural area, formerly heavily/primarily wooded, not a few blocks of 
residential or commercial landuse, as are many typical urban fires.  "Huge" is 
about right.

At least one person (a HOT technical manager, also a firefighter) said (on the 
tagging thread and in off-list emails to me) that such polygons can serve a 
historical purpose by remaining in OSM, though I see little purpose in doing so 
for extended periods of time, believing that after the map is updated with 
newer imagery, the polygon's (initial) purpose is exhausted and can be removed 
from OSM.  His arguments for why it should remain have to do with better 
building polygons enclosed by the perimeter during HOT re-mapping and into the 
re-population and re-building phases in landuse=residential areas that happen 
after a major fire.  As a firefighter (and HOT mapper), he finds such data 
helpful, as in that case, a fire=perimeter polygon remaining is valuable 
history.  That could last years, perhaps decades, I'm certain the effects of 
this fire will be long-lasting:  many of the millions of trees that were 
destroyed were several hundred years old.

Either way (the polygon is long-lasting or ephemeral to the extent it aids 
better landcover mapping), it is a lightweight data structure, tagged with only 
three tags (fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date), it remains invisible to 
all renderers (that I know of) and is intended to aid mappers determining 
"should re-mapping of landcover happen HERE, in or out?"  I find that balance 
of data vs. usefulness "worth it."

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

Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[michele]

Hai ragione, ho inviato una email a loro.

-Messaggio originale- 
From: emmexx

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:57 AM
To: openstreetmap list - italiano
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

On 9/25/20 10:43 AM, mich...@michelevicario.net wrote:

In ogni caso, l’altimetria nel GPX, non è indispensabile ma può sempre
essere utile.


Va bene, però non è qui che lo devi chiedere, si tratta di una scelta
degli sviluppatori di Way Marked Trails non di OSM.

ciao
maxx

___
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] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[michele]

Anche io usavo Locus Map, ma non ricordo come erano le Openandromaps. Ora uso 
OsmAnd con le https://www.freemap.sk/?map=14/46.382232/13.467693=X 
assieme al layer Way Marked Trails.
Molto utile in OsmAnd la possibilità di variare al volo (direttamente sullo 
schermo) la trasparenza del layer layer Way Marked Trails.

From: Michele Galimberti 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:45 AM
To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

Anche io vado spesso in montagna, sia per escursioni che scialpinismo o altro. 
L'app che uso io si chiama Locus Map, ha una versione gratuita e una a 
pagamento e ha una gestione del dislivello calcolata con DTM (calcolabile anche 
offline quindi). 

Soprattutto, è compatibile con le Openandromaps 
(https://www.openandromaps.org/), che ritengo le migliori mappe OSM disponibili 
per l'uso offline.

Il ven 25 set 2020, 10:34 Danilo via Talk-it  ha 
scritto:

  Sono alpinista oltre che mappatore e ho ben presente le problematiche. 
  É del tutto ovvio che si deve operare senza connessione.
  Ci sono app che ne hanno bisogno e altre che possono operare senza
  Devi scegliere queste ultime.
  Te ne cito una: OsmAnd.
  Oltre a quanto stiamo discutendo presenta notevoli qualità per gli 
escursionisti.
  Te la consiglio.
  Ciao


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




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

Re: [talk-cz] mapy bývalých tratí

[Jan Martinec]

Ahoj,

No, reálný featury už zmapovány byly... napíšu mu, zjevně má ještě další v
plánu.

Díky všem,
HPM

Dne pá 25. 9. 2020 19:26 uživatel <0174  napsal:

> Ahoj,
>
> na tagging listu se před pár měsíci něco takového řešilo (případně
> zkusím dohledat). Jestli jsem to dobře pochopil, tak z toho vylezlo
> (očekávaně):
>
> - Pokud je nějaká stopa v terénu, tak proč ne (s vhodným
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix)
> - Pokud v terénu není nic vidět, tak nemapovat, protože
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features
>
> <0174
>
> Dne 25. 9. 2020 v 19:09 Jan Martinec napsal(a):
> > Ahoj,
> >
> > zabrousil jsem do OsmCha a vylezla mi tam sada úprav od uživatele
> > conioteca, od tohoto CS dál:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91120482
> >
> > Mapuje - detailně - tratě, které existovaly, ale dnes už je po nich
> > jen pár pozůstatků.
> > Na jednu stranu je to mému srdci blízké téma, ty koleje tam kdysi byly
> > a na pár metrech jsou - ale dává to smysl? Pokud bych se držel OTGR,
> > tak sotva - po těch tratích nezůstalo vůbec nic, současná zástavba
> > vede úplně napříč bývalou polohou.
> >
> > Není to fikce, ale není to ani současný stav - kam s tím? Není nějaká
> > instance pro historický stav mapy?
> >
> > Díky za rady a mapování zdar,
> > Honza Piškvor Martinec
> >
> > ___
> > talk-cz mailing list
> > talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> > https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
> ___
> talk-cz mailing list
> talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
___
talk-cz mailing list
talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [talk-cz] mapy bývalých tratí

[<0174]

Ahoj,

na tagging listu se před pár měsíci něco takového řešilo (případně 
zkusím dohledat). Jestli jsem to dobře pochopil, tak z toho vylezlo 
(očekávaně):


- Pokud je nějaká stopa v terénu, tak proč ne (s vhodným 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix)
- Pokud v terénu není nic vidět, tak nemapovat, protože 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features


<0174

Dne 25. 9. 2020 v 19:09 Jan Martinec napsal(a):

Ahoj,

zabrousil jsem do OsmCha a vylezla mi tam sada úprav od uživatele 
conioteca, od tohoto CS dál:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91120482

Mapuje - detailně - tratě, které existovaly, ale dnes už je po nich 
jen pár pozůstatků.
Na jednu stranu je to mému srdci blízké téma, ty koleje tam kdysi byly 
a na pár metrech jsou - ale dává to smysl? Pokud bych se držel OTGR, 
tak sotva - po těch tratích nezůstalo vůbec nic, současná zástavba 
vede úplně napříč bývalou polohou.


Není to fikce, ale není to ani současný stav - kam s tím? Není nějaká 
instance pro historický stav mapy?


Díky za rady a mapování zdar,
Honza Piškvor Martinec

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


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

Re: [talk-cz] mapy bývalých tratí

[petr . kadlec]

Ahoj,

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 7:09 PM Jan Martinec  wrote:

> Mapuje - detailně - tratě, které existovaly, ale dnes už je po nich jen
> pár pozůstatků.
> Není to fikce, ale není to ani současný stav - kam s tím? Není nějaká
> instance pro historický stav mapy?
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map
https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/

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

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:49 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> (this comment is only regardinbg the "lanes" part of the thread)
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:30:15 -0500
>> From: Paul Johnson 
>> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations
>>
>
>
>> > > Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then?
>> > >
>> > > 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes.
>
> The wiki is correctly reflecting the practice in many places, for example
> in Italy. Almost all users here count the car lanes and not bicycle, foot,
> combined foot-cycle lanes.
> If there are different  approaches prevalent in other places, then at
> worst the wiki is incomplete by not listing diverging approaches.
>
>> > >That's
>> > > not reflective of how validators deal with lanes, how data consumers
>> > > like Osmand or Magic Earth deal with lanes,
>
> Can you point more precisely where Osmand and Magic Earth differ from the
> wiki.
>

They actually treat all lanes as lanes when all lanes are mapped.  They're
automatically providing incorrect lane guidance when tagged to the wiki, as
the wiki specifically asks people to omit lanes.


> or how ground truth works.
>>
> Ground truth depends on how you define lanes.
> If you count bike lanes this
>  is a 4-lane
> road, if not it's a two-lane road.
>

It's a 4 lane road.  That's how lanes works in the real world.


> > > The whole "but you can't fit a motor vehicle down it" argument is
>> > > facile, that's what access:lanes=* and width:lanes=* is for.
>>
> In this argument you forget that hundreds of thousends of roads have been
> inserted in the OSM database using the wiki definition.
>

Just because it's time consuming to fix doesn't mean we shouldn't bother
fixing it.  Or we'd have just thrown in the towel after the OBDL
relicensing.


> > I agree that width is a poor argument for the status quo, especially
>> > given the common practice (in California, anyways) of bike lanes that
>> > double as right turn lanes for cars.
>>
> As far as I know (rom riding a lot ib California, we are not talking about
> bike lanes, but, at best, about shared lanes.
> Example: bike lane
>  disappers, and 
> becomes
> (unsigned) shared lane
> .
>

It didn't disappear so much as it became motor_vehicle=yes.  Probably a
good situation where mode:turn:lanes (ie, bicycle:turn:lanes,
motor_vehicle:turn:lanes) may need to come into existence.

> Apparently some mappers
>> > only count through lanes but exclude turn lanes.
>>
> That seems fine to me especially if the turn lanes are short (ike  in the
> above example in LA.
>

Except this breaks data consumers from being able to provide accurate lane
guidance.


> The editor won't solve the problem of existing mapping.
>

Maproulette can help organize fixing this.


> Hopefully when id gets
>> lane tools, it does the same thing JOSM does in this regard.
>>
>
>
>> > I'm pretty sure existing routers would have no problem with including
>> > bike lanes in lanes=*, as long as bicycle:lanes=* and vehicle:lanes=*
>> > are both present. So I think a reasonable migration path would be to use
>> > the bicycle:lanes=* and vehicle:lanes=* tags to explicitly mark the
>> > non-auto-centric approach you're advocating.
>>
>
> There is no migration path. I would, from my European perspective at
> least, stick with the present usage and not count any bike/pedestrian
> lane/horse lanes.
>
> The number of lanes is a rough indication for the capacity for motor
> vehicles of a road.
>

"Fuck accuracy, fuck ground truth" --you.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Modifiche utente nuovo

[Ivo Reano]

Ad una seconda occhiata ho trovato che ha inserito lo skilift ad una
relazione su un percorso MTB, Mi sembra corretto
E, tra l'altro, se non ho sbagliato a leggere lui si è limitato a cambiare
il nome dello skilift, c'era già nella relazione

Il giorno ven 25 set 2020 alle ore 19:10 Ivo Reano  ha
scritto:

> Non vedo relazioni nelle modifiche dell'utente.
> Mi sembra abbia fatto delle correzioni plausibili.
>
> C'è una relazione route=ski con un sacco di roba, ma non ho tempo di
> controllarla tutta
> C'è un multipolygon winter_sports che fa a pugni con un landuse
> winter_sports.
>
>
> Il giorno ven 25 set 2020 alle ore 18:41 Andreas Lattmann <
> andreaenzolattm...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Buongiorno,
>> c'è qualcuno che ha un pc sottomano per verificare i 3 edit del seguente
>> utente?
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cortina%20Marketing
>>
>> Da una prima occhiata ha aggiunto in una relazione anche la seggiovia o
>> quello che è.
>>
>> Grazie
>>
>> Andreas
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [talk-cz] mapy bývalých tratí

[Majkaz]

U nás vylezlo před lety něco podobného.  Chvíli jsme se dotyčným kolem toho 
dohadovali,  a nakonec jsem to nechala plavat.
Taky je to záležitost spíš nějaké historické mapy,  i když místy zůstal třeba 
násep, ale jako takový to nikdo nezná. A místy po tom není na místě ani 
památky, zmizelo to pod silnicemi a baráky.

25. 9. 2020 19:09:42 Jan Martinec :

> Ahoj,
> 
> zabrousil jsem do OsmCha a vylezla mi tam sada úprav od uživatele conioteca, 
> od tohoto CS dál:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91120482
> 
> Mapuje - detailně - tratě, které existovaly, ale dnes už je po nich jen pár 
> pozůstatků.
> Na jednu stranu je to mému srdci blízké téma, ty koleje tam kdysi byly a na 
> pár metrech jsou - ale dává to smysl? Pokud bych se držel OTGR, tak sotva - 
> po těch tratích nezůstalo vůbec nic, současná zástavba vede úplně napříč 
> bývalou polohou.
> 
> Není to fikce, ale není to ani současný stav - kam s tím? Není nějaká 
> instance pro historický stav mapy?
> 
> Díky za rady a mapování zdar,
> Honza Piškvor Martinec
> 
> ___
> 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-fr] Installation infructueuse d'un tasking manager

[Jocelyn Jaubert]

Bonjour,

En fait, je pense que tech@ n'est pas la bonne liste, parce qu'elle est
dédiée aux serveurs de OSM-France.

Pour ce genre de question, je pense que d...@openstreetmap.org (en
anglais) est plus approprié. Ou alors, sur https://help.openstreetmap.org/ ?

-- 
Jocelyn


Le 25/09/2020 à 17:37, Vincent Bergeot a écrit :
> Bonjour Lucas,
> je suppose que tu as vu la réponse de jacques mais es-tu sur la liste
> tech@ ?
> 
> quand tu parles d'installer un TM dédié, il est dédié à qui si ce n'est
> pas indiscret ?
> Bonne journée
> 
> 
> Le 23/09/2020 à 15:27, Lucas LONGOUR via Talk-fr a écrit :
>> Bonjour à tous,
>>
>> Je cherche à installer un Tasking Manager dédié. Jusqu'à maintenant je
>> me suis penché sur le TM utilisé par HOT. Cependant malgré plusieurs
>> tentatives de mise en production il subsiste des erreurs qui entravent
>> son bon fonctionnement (sur la version 4). La version 2 semble être la
>> plus utilisée par des tiers mais ne peut être installée (du moins pas
>> en suivant les indications) en raison de son ancienneté.
>>
>> J'ai également testé STM mais il ne permet d'aditer que par le biais
>> de JOSM.
>>
>> Auriez vous connaissance d'un autre tasking manager ou d'une procédure
>> d'installation (distante et non locale) du tm hot ?
>>
>> Cordialement,
>>
>> Lucas Longour
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> 
> 
> -- 
> Vincent Bergeot
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fin de projet "ça reste ouvert" : MERCI

[osm . sanspourriel]

Il reste les opening_hours:covid19= sans opening_hours=* / à
traiter en fixme, note ?

D'accord sur le reste.

Attention il y a tous les :covid19.

J'ai vu courant septembre une bàl (absente d'OSM) avec une affiche
disant qu'elle était fermée pour cause de covid. Ça sent la bàl que la
Poste veut supprimer. Si elle était dans OSM ce serait utile de
conserver mais ça sent plus l'exception qui confirme la règle. Et elle
se ferait choper par les règles sur l'OD.

Je pense qu'on peut virer tous les *:covid19.

Si on a noté des horaires *spécial covid* c'est que ce ne sont pas les
horaires normaux. Et pourquoi pas créer des notes et des fixme sur les
objets sans horaires ? Marc va apprécier ;-).

Au pire un fixme. Mais pourquoi dégrader l'info ? Soit on laisse les
infos dans OSM et ça produit des alertes Osmose (comme des fixme en plus
précis) soit on vire.

Éventuellement sur les services nouveau style takeway:covid19=yes, sans
takeaway, ça peut peut-être utile de garder et de laisser ça dans
Osmose. S'il y a un lien web ou facebook, inciter à vérifier en ligne ?

Jean-Yvon




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

Re: [Talk-it] Modifiche utente nuovo

[Ivo Reano]

Non vedo relazioni nelle modifiche dell'utente.
Mi sembra abbia fatto delle correzioni plausibili.

C'è una relazione route=ski con un sacco di roba, ma non ho tempo di
controllarla tutta
C'è un multipolygon winter_sports che fa a pugni con un landuse
winter_sports.


Il giorno ven 25 set 2020 alle ore 18:41 Andreas Lattmann <
andreaenzolattm...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Buongiorno,
> c'è qualcuno che ha un pc sottomano per verificare i 3 edit del seguente
> utente?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cortina%20Marketing
>
> Da una prima occhiata ha aggiunto in una relazione anche la seggiovia o
> quello che è.
>
> Grazie
>
> Andreas
> ___
> 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-cz] mapy bývalých tratí

[Jan Martinec]

Ahoj,

zabrousil jsem do OsmCha a vylezla mi tam sada úprav od uživatele 
conioteca, od tohoto CS dál:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91120482

Mapuje - detailně - tratě, které existovaly, ale dnes už je po nich jen 
pár pozůstatků.
Na jednu stranu je to mému srdci blízké téma, ty koleje tam kdysi byly a 
na pár metrech jsou - ale dává to smysl? Pokud bych se držel OTGR, tak 
sotva - po těch tratích nezůstalo vůbec nic, současná zástavba vede 
úplně napříč bývalou polohou.


Není to fikce, ale není to ani současný stav - kam s tím? Není nějaká 
instance pro historický stav mapy?


Díky za rady a mapování zdar,
Honza Piškvor Martinec

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] OSMdata

[Philippe Verdy]

sport_center indique l'orgonisation, une forme possible d'usage, mais pas
l'objet physique.
sport=swimming indique l'activité principale de cette organisation. L'objet
physique ou les objets physiques qu'elle utilise ne sont pas forcément là.
L'objet physique (la surface en eau, habilitée à la pratique de ce sport)
n'est pas forcément utilisé pour ça.
On retombe sur la dichotomie entre l'espace géographique et ses usages
souvent multiples, et changeant indépendamment.
On ne tague donc pas la même chose. D'ailleur le tag sport=* n'indique que
l'activité sans préciser le lieu réel de l'activité, c'est un indicateur de
classification (partielle) qui ne se suffit pas à lui-même. Le sport est
vaste et comprend des tas de choes qui ne sont même pas géolocalisées, même
dans une discipline particulière.
Et ce qu'on entend par "piscine" désigne rarement uniquement la surface en
eau mais aussi ce qui est autour et qui y est souvent indispensable mais
pas toujours dans l'entourage immédiat.
Si on veut taguer le "terrain", le bassin devrait être tagué en tant que
tel, indépendamment des installations éventuelles autour (qui y sont liées
mais pas de façon unique).
Même le sport "natation" n'est pas seulement la pratique de la seule
natation dans le bassin, et les besoins ne sont pas les même en tant
qu'activité de loisir, de détente, de soin, de développement personnel, de
spectacle, ou de pratique compétitive.
Sans compter aussi que ça a aussi une autre utilité en terme de sécurité,
ne serait-ce que pour consituer une réserve d'eau utilisable pour autre
chose et rendu nécessaire ou à disposition légale d'autres usages publics
par une autorité autorisée, même si ensuite le cout induit pour cet usage
est pris en charge/compensé par une assurance privée ou collective, et que
même l'usage privé est très réglementé et restreint).



Le mer. 23 sept. 2020 à 18:10, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> sur  "leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming", cela n'indique pas
> nécessairement le contour de la piscine mais l'emprise de la zone sportive
> qui inclue une piscine, ou un bassin protégé ça peut être zone délimitée
> d'un étang naturel ou artificiel ou d'un lac, et ne concerner qu'une partie
> du bassin, le reste étant pour d'autres activités comme la pratique de
> sports en eau vive avec une autre organisation.
> De plus même si le sport principal c'est la natation, on peut y trouver
> une zone dédié au plongeon, à l'entrainement à la plongée, il peut y avoir
> aussi une utilisation mixte (genre bassin qui peut être couvert d'un
> plancher mobile, et servir à d'autres sports, sans compter aussi des salles
> de culture physique et même dans un parc autour de l'athlétisme, un terrain
> de tennis. S'il y a unen tribune, ce peut être aussi une salle de
> spectacle; dans certains cas c'est aussi un musée où la piscine est
> conservée pour sa beauté architecturale, ses céramiques: la maintenir en
> eau permet de préserver l'équilibre de l'édifice et le bassin n'avoir plus
> qu'une fonction ornementale qui servira seulement à certaines occasions de
> prestige après un controle de l'eau et un peu de rangement autour...)
>
> Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 à 11:34, Denis Chenu  a
> écrit :
>
>> Quand je parle des erreurs, cela peut être sur la carte ou sur la façon
>> de les récupérer. Donc 2 liens différents : comment contribuer à
>> openstreetmap et comment remonter les erreurs ici(cf exemple).
>>
>> Denis
>> exemple : les piscines ne remonte pas toutes, pas celle en
>> leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming
>>
>
> Donc si c'est biuen une piscine, autant la délimiter en tant que tel à
> l'intérieur du centre sportif. Enfin des centres sportifs consacrés à la
> natation peuvent ne plus être qu'un point de rassemblement d'un club,
> l'activité étant ailleurs (surtout je pense pour les clubs liés aux équipes
> de compétition, ou la préparation sportive hors eau).
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/09/2020 17:43, Dave F via talk wrote:

Nick's description is "overgrown, unclear, prone to flooding"

These are all subjective interpretations.
There are many official PROW's in those conditions.


(for the benefit of people outside of England and Wales a "public right 
of way" is a special legal designation here)


To be fair, what Nick was talking about wasn't a PROW though.


It doesn't mean they're "abandoned" or "disused".
It doesn't mean someone isn't prepared to wade or hack their way through.

Accurate descriptions of the path's state(s) are required. Tags 
something like: Overgrown=yes, flooding=intermittent  etc.


Indeed - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown has some usage 
and and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/flood_prone has a lot of 
usage.  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility has even 
more.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

[Volker Schmidt]

(this comment is only regardinbg the "lanes" part of the thread)

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:30:15 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson 
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations
>


> > > Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then?
> > >
> > > 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes.

The wiki is correctly reflecting the practice in many places, for example
in Italy. Almost all users here count the car lanes and not bicycle, foot,
combined foot-cycle lanes.
If there are different  approaches prevalent in other places, then at worst
the wiki is incomplete by not listing diverging approaches.

> > >That's
> > > not reflective of how validators deal with lanes, how data consumers
> > > like Osmand or Magic Earth deal with lanes,

Can you point more precisely where Osmand and Magic Earth differ from the
wiki.

or how ground truth works.
>
Ground truth depends on how you define lanes.
If you count bike lanes this
 is a 4-lane road,
if not it's a two-lane road.

> > The whole "but you can't fit a motor vehicle down it" argument is
> > > facile, that's what access:lanes=* and width:lanes=* is for.
>
In this argument you forget that hundreds of thousends of roads have been
inserted in the OSM database using the wiki definition.

> I agree that width is a poor argument for the status quo, especially
> > given the common practice (in California, anyways) of bike lanes that
> > double as right turn lanes for cars.
>
As far as I know (rom riding a lot ib California, we are not talking about
bike lanes, but, at best, about shared lanes.
Example: bike lane 
disappers, and becomes (unsigned) shared lane
.

> For what it's worth, the lanes=* documentation has long included a
> > passage recommending that data consumers treat lanes=* as a minimum
> > value rather than a reliable exact lane count.

Yes but that statement " Many ways have not yet been tagged with the total
number of lanes at all points, but only with the number of through lanes of
a longer section. Therefore, data consumers can mostly treat the lanes tag
as a minimum rather than an exact number." refers specifically to turn
lanes and similar situations.

> Apparently some mappers
> > only count through lanes but exclude turn lanes.
>
That seems fine to me especially if the turn lanes are short (ike  in the
above example in LA.

>
> Fortunately, editors will automatically fix this and make lanes=* be the
> total of lanes:forward=*, lanes:backward=* and lanes:both_ways=*,

I think JOSM only complains in case of a n odd numberof lanes. and missing
forward/backaward counts


> so this
> is something that isn't hard to solve long term.


The editor won't solve the problem of existing mapping.

Hopefully when id gets
> lane tools, it does the same thing JOSM does in this regard.
>


> > I'm pretty sure existing routers would have no problem with including
> > bike lanes in lanes=*, as long as bicycle:lanes=* and vehicle:lanes=*
> > are both present. So I think a reasonable migration path would be to use
> > the bicycle:lanes=* and vehicle:lanes=* tags to explicitly mark the
> > non-auto-centric approach you're advocating.
>

There is no migration path. I would, from my European perspective at least,
stick with the present usage and not count any bike/pedestrian lane/horse
lanes.

The number of lanes is a rough indication for the capacity for motor
vehicles of a road.
If you want to be more precise you can use the second version of the lanes
key as described in this separate wiki page
.

Volker
Italy, Europe




Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Dave F via talk]

Nick's description is "overgrown, unclear, prone to flooding"

These are all subjective interpretations.
There are many official PROW's in those conditions.
It doesn't mean they're "abandoned" or "disused".
It doesn't mean someone isn't prepared to wade or hack their way through.

Accurate descriptions of the path's state(s) are required. Tags 
something like: Overgrown=yes, flooding=intermittent  etc.


DaveF

On 25/09/2020 17:03, Mike Thompson wrote:

I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc

If it is totally gone, I still tend to leave the way with "note=There 
is no longer a path here, the land manager restored the area to its 
natural state sometime before ", (or whatever is appropriate) 
this provides some assurance that someone doesn't add it back to OSM 
using and old source (imagery, GPX tracks, etc).


Mike

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:36 AM Andy Townsend > wrote:


On 25/09/2020 16:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no
longer very usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown
or is unclear and prone to flooding in wetter periods). Something
like "path=abandoned"?


My 2p:


Perhaps use "trail_visibility" through the lifecycle of the path
as it changes from "being obvious on the ground" to "not being
there at all"?


Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about
deleting it altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path
before deleting it to something like "note=nothing on this
alignment any more".


If it's still visible on imagery, I'd be tempted to leave that
note there (without a highway tag) to stop someone retracing it.


Best Regards,


Andy


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


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fin de projet "ça reste ouvert" : MERCI + soirée 24 septembre à Montrouge

[Vincent Bergeot]

Le 25/09/2020 à 17:57, PanierAvide a écrit :
Le mieux est donc de décider collectivement de la stratégie à adopter. 
Vos avis ?


lorsque l'on a opening_hours=* on efface automatiquement les :covid19

les opening_hours:covid19=open / same / off / closed -> on efface 
automatiquement


Il reste les opening_hours:covid19= sans opening_hours=* / à traiter 
en fixme, note ?


amha

--
Vincent Bergeot


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

[Talk-it] Modifiche utente nuovo

[Andreas Lattmann]

Buongiorno,
c'è qualcuno che ha un pc sottomano per verificare i 3 edit del seguente
utente?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cortina%20Marketing

Da una prima occhiata ha aggiunto in una relazione anche la seggiovia o
quello che è.

Grazie

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Mike Thompson]

I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc

If it is totally gone, I still tend to leave the way with "note=There is no
longer a path here, the land manager restored the area to its natural state
sometime before ", (or whatever is appropriate) this provides some
assurance that someone doesn't add it back to OSM using and old source
(imagery, GPX tracks, etc).

Mike

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:36 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 25/09/2020 16:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no longer very
> usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown or is unclear and prone
> to flooding in wetter periods). Something like "path=abandoned"?
>
> My 2p:
>
>
> Perhaps use "trail_visibility" through the lifecycle of the path as it
> changes from "being obvious on the ground" to "not being there at all"?
>
>
> Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it
> altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to
> something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".
>
>
> If it's still visible on imagery, I'd be tempted to leave that note there
> (without a highway tag) to stop someone retracing it.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fin de projet "ça reste ouvert" : MERCI + soirée 24 septembre à Montrouge

[PanierAvide]

Bonjour,

De mon côté je n'aurais pas de scrupules à les effacer automatiquement, 
mais l'idée de l'analyse Osmose était de récupérer les horaires des 
commerces pour lesquelles on ne connaît pas les horaires habituels. Donc 
si on part dans l'idée de faire un peu dans le détail, effectivement 
chaque personne doit vérifier les points dans sa zone. Le mieux est donc 
de décider collectivement de la stratégie à adopter. Vos avis ?


Cordialement,

Adrien P.

Le 25/09/2020 à 17:10, Blef a écrit :

Bonjour,
"Ça reste ouvert" a fermé. Bravo et merci, mais... qui fait le ménage?
La plupart des tags opening_hours:covid19 sont toujours là, Osmose ne 
se prive pas de le signaler.
Je pensais qu'une campagne de suppression massive, genre script ou 
autre méthode que je ne maitrise absolument pas, allait être lancée à 
l'issue de cette opération.

Apparemment, on n'en parle pas.
Dois-je comprendre qu'il faut compter sur chaque contributeur pour 
effacer ses propres contribution?



Le 14/09/2020 à 19:46, Florian LAINEZ a écrit :

Bonjour à tous,
Toute l'équipe de "ça reste ouvert" renouvelle ses 1000 mercis à tous 
les contributeurs OSM qui ont pris part au projet. Notre mobilisation 
collective s'est révélé extraordinaire durant cette période difficile.


Le confinement étant terminé depuis quelques temps, il est maintenant 
temps de*clôturer officiellement le projet.*
Nous fermerons notre service définitivement le 30 septembre (cf. 
annonce officielle 
) 
pour le Monde entier.
Après cette date, les applis ne seront plus dispo sur les stores et 
il ne sera plus possible de modifier OSM via le site web.


Pour fêter ça, nous organisons une *soirée de fin de projet qui aura 
lieu à Montrouge le 24 septembre.*
*Infos et inscription gratuite : 
https://www.helloasso.com/associations/jungle-bus/evenements/soiree-de-fin-de-projet-ca-reste-ouvert

*
Vous êtes tous conviés dans la limite des places disponibles (mesures 
covid oblige).


Le site Internet et les applis Android/iOS "ça reste ouvert" ont 
vraiment pété les stats de la communauté OSM et c'est une grande 
fierté pour chacun d'entre nous.
Depuis le premier jour de confinement en France, le 17 mars, “ça 
reste ouvert” c’est (chiffres du 13/09/2020) :


- 426 407 visiteurs uniques sur la carte
- 482 210 lieux visibles en France (2 259 836 dans le Monde)
- 130 018 lieux mis à jour sur la carte en France (336 742 dans le Monde)

Forts de ce succès, vous l'avez sûrement vu passer, "ça reste ouvert" 
a abouti à un nouveau projet qui vise à dynamiser la communauté sur 
une base régulière : c'est le projetdumois  
(dot FR ;)) dont vous n'avez pas fini d'entendre parler.


--

*Florian Lainez*

@overflorian 

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Installation infructueuse d'un tasking manager

[Vincent Bergeot]

Bonjour Lucas,
je suppose que tu as vu la réponse de jacques mais es-tu sur la liste 
tech@ ?


quand tu parles d'installer un TM dédié, il est dédié à qui si ce n'est 
pas indiscret ?

Bonne journée


Le 23/09/2020 à 15:27, Lucas LONGOUR via Talk-fr a écrit :

Bonjour à tous,

Je cherche à installer un Tasking Manager dédié. Jusqu'à maintenant je 
me suis penché sur le TM utilisé par HOT. Cependant malgré plusieurs 
tentatives de mise en production il subsiste des erreurs qui entravent 
son bon fonctionnement (sur la version 4). La version 2 semble être la 
plus utilisée par des tiers mais ne peut être installée (du moins pas 
en suivant les indications) en raison de son ancienneté.


J'ai également testé STM mais il ne permet d'aditer que par le biais 
de JOSM.


Auriez vous connaissance d'un autre tasking manager ou d'une procédure 
d'installation (distante et non locale) du tm hot ?


Cordialement,

Lucas Longour

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



--
Vincent Bergeot

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/09/2020 16:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no longer 
very usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown or is unclear 
and prone to flooding in wetter periods). Something like "path=abandoned"?



My 2p:


Perhaps use "trail_visibility" through the lifecycle of the path as it 
changes from "being obvious on the ground" to "not being there at all"?



Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it 
altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to 
something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".



If it's still visible on imagery, I'd be tempted to leave that note 
there (without a highway tag) to stop someone retracing it.



Best Regards,


Andy


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

[OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no longer very 
usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown or is unclear and prone to 
flooding in wetter periods). Something like "path=abandoned"?

There's a case like that near where I am in which a path was mapped in the 
early days of OSM but has now fallen into disuse. It isn't an official path, 
just a minor path through some woods on land with public access. My gut feeling 
would be to tag as "path=abandoned" to signal that it isn't really usable as a 
path anymore (so that renderers and routers can warn the user about it or even 
ignore it, for instance) but just wondering if anyone else has come across this 
situation.

Thanks,
Nick



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fin de projet "ça reste ouvert" : MERCI + soirée 24 septembre à Montrouge

[Blef]

Bonjour,
"Ça reste ouvert" a fermé. Bravo et merci, mais... qui fait le ménage?
La plupart des tags opening_hours:covid19 sont toujours là, Osmose ne se 
prive pas de le signaler.
Je pensais qu'une campagne de suppression massive, genre script ou autre 
méthode que je ne maitrise absolument pas, allait être lancée à l'issue 
de cette opération.

Apparemment, on n'en parle pas.
Dois-je comprendre qu'il faut compter sur chaque contributeur pour 
effacer ses propres contribution?



Le 14/09/2020 à 19:46, Florian LAINEZ a écrit :

Bonjour à tous,
Toute l'équipe de "ça reste ouvert" renouvelle ses 1000 mercis à tous 
les contributeurs OSM qui ont pris part au projet. Notre mobilisation 
collective s'est révélé extraordinaire durant cette période difficile.


Le confinement étant terminé depuis quelques temps, il est maintenant 
temps de*clôturer officiellement le projet.*
Nous fermerons notre service définitivement le 30 septembre (cf. 
annonce officielle 
) 
pour le Monde entier.
Après cette date, les applis ne seront plus dispo sur les stores et il 
ne sera plus possible de modifier OSM via le site web.


Pour fêter ça, nous organisons une *soirée de fin de projet qui aura 
lieu à Montrouge le 24 septembre.*
*Infos et inscription gratuite : 
https://www.helloasso.com/associations/jungle-bus/evenements/soiree-de-fin-de-projet-ca-reste-ouvert

*
Vous êtes tous conviés dans la limite des places disponibles (mesures 
covid oblige).


Le site Internet et les applis Android/iOS "ça reste ouvert" ont 
vraiment pété les stats de la communauté OSM et c'est une grande 
fierté pour chacun d'entre nous.
Depuis le premier jour de confinement en France, le 17 mars, “ça reste 
ouvert” c’est (chiffres du 13/09/2020) :


- 426 407 visiteurs uniques sur la carte
- 482 210 lieux visibles en France (2 259 836 dans le Monde)
- 130 018 lieux mis à jour sur la carte en France (336 742 dans le Monde)

Forts de ce succès, vous l'avez sûrement vu passer, "ça reste ouvert" 
a abouti à un nouveau projet qui vise à dynamiser la communauté sur 
une base régulière : c'est le projetdumois  
(dot FR ;)) dont vous n'avez pas fini d'entendre parler.


--

*Florian Lainez*

@overflorian 

___
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-us] [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[James Umbanhowar]

Something else to consider is that even though there is a perimeter for
a fire, there can be highly variable impacts on the landcover within
the perimeter.  Some areas may have not burned, other areas only burned
the understory, some with limited burning of trees and other with full
tree killing canopy burns.  The effects of these will also depend on
the specific species that burn.  So to convert and entire area inside a
fire perimeter to one land cover without extensive surveying would
likely be in error.  

It seems as though the perimeter tag is the most verifiable at this
point.

James

On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 15:05 -0700, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Steve,
> Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for.
> landuse=forest is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie
> trees. Just because there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse
> changes. Landcover is a better tag for burnt areas as well as areas
> just clearcut. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM stevea 
> wrote:
> > I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find
> > surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires
> > that are more widespread all across the Western United States.
> > 
> > I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags
> > I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to
> > the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a
> > 'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests
> > have sadly burned down, or substantially so).
> > 
> > Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres
> > of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential,
> > commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM
> > doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this
> > situation.  My initial tagging of this (simply tagged, but
> > enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my part, but as
> > I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for similar data
> > in the map, I come up empty.
> > 
> > First, do others think it is important that we map these?  I say
> > yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and
> > might map here, both present and future.  The aftermath of this
> > fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for
> > OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered than
> > a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter,
> > start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses
> > something."  I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and
> > aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated
> > myself.  So, considering the thousands of structures that burned
> > (most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are burn-
> > scarred and distinctly different than their landcover, millions of
> > trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently tagged, I
> > look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a
> > large polygon.
> > 
> > Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results
> > (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we
> > choose to do that?  Do we have landcover tags which could replace
> > landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like
> > natural=fire_scarred?  (I'm making that up, but it or something
> > like it could work).  How and when might we replace these with
> > something less severe?  On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate
> > that we map any of this, please say so.
> > 
> > Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors
> > who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters,
> > 
> > SteveA
> > California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe
> > now that this fire is 100% contained)
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea 
> > wrote:
> > > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home
> > list" for me.
> > > 
> > > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, 
> > http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 .  This is a huge fire (sadly,
> > there are larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and
> > caused the evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). 
> > There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of structures, mostly
> > residential homes, which have burned down and the event has
> > "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the character of
> > California's oldest state park (Big Basin).
> > > 
> > > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human
> > patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a
> > significant time to come.  It is a "major disaster."  I'm curious
> > how HOT teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated
> > in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter
> > dips and other human structures during a large fire near me), I've
> > simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag 

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[majkaz]

Všim sis, že ten barák není v RUIAN jako budova (fialové v příloze), ale ta parcela jen 
vypadá jako možný barák v katastrální mapě? A přitom ani tam není (minimálně od listopadu 
2018) jako budova označená, katastr to má jako "ostatní plochu". To je něco 
jiného, to je jen a pouze tupost aktivních uživatelů, co kreslí, aniž by tušili co před 
sebou vidí.
 
Samozřejmě, pokud existuje něco takového, tak chápu, že je třeba to "nějak" 
vyřešit.
 
Ale tohle skutečně není většina případů, spousta lidí jen kliká RUIAN a katastrální mapu si ani 
nezapne. Jinak si nedokážu vysvětlit, že naklikají naprostý úlet (třeba jen cíp budovy o délce 
stěny max. půl metru, z katastrální mapy jasně viditelné, že je to ustřižené). A těmhle je třeba 
sebrat to z RUIAN, alespoň v té "naší" verzi co se podle ní trasuje. A budova označená 
jako "chybná" se zkrátka už nějakou dobu nenatrasuje.
 
Majka
__

Od: "Jan Martinec" 
Komu: "OpenStreetMap Czech Republic" 
Datum: 25.09.2020 16:06
Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením


Nevím, tenhle barák padl při asanaci (1905), a jsem si celkem jist, že jsem ho 
reklamoval všemi možnými cestami -  napotřetí jsem ho prostě jen otagoval, protože se 
vracel jako obzvláště vytrvalá zombie. Od tý doby je 
klid:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/511033462 
Zdar,Honza Piškvor Martinec
Dne pá 25. 9. 2020 16:02 uživatel majkaz > 
napsal:Nemusíš čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem. Už to tu padlo několikrát, chyba se dá 
nahlásit na poloha.net  (JOSM, plugin PointInfo) a pak už jí tam nikdo 
jen tak nenakliká - obratem se přestane brát jako budova k natrasování.
Majka
__
> Od: "Miroslav Suchy" >
> Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org 
> Datum: 25.09.2020 15:53
> Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením
>
Dne 25. 09. 20 v 15:34 majkaz napsal(a):
> 2. je lepší nahlásit, že nesedí RUIAN, než se snažit to zlomit jinou cestou

On to většinou nahlásí stavebník nebo stavební úřad (nebo kdo). Ale když vidím 
bagry a vím co tam bude nebo nebude (neb
lokální informace) tak tu budovu smažu.

Jenže do pár dnech ji tam někdo přidá: je na Bingu (ok), je v katastru (ok). A 
čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem fakt
nebudu. Přidám prefix a v takovém případě jsem nikdy neměl problém, že by se to 
objevilo zpět.

M.


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

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

https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz 

--

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

https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz 

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

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[Jan Martinec]

Nevím, tenhle barák padl při asanaci (1905), a jsem si celkem jist, že jsem
ho reklamoval všemi možnými cestami -  napotřetí jsem ho prostě jen
otagoval, protože se vracel jako obzvláště vytrvalá zombie. Od tý doby je
klid:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/511033462

Zdar,
Honza Piškvor Martinec

Dne pá 25. 9. 2020 16:02 uživatel majkaz  napsal:

> Nemusíš čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem. Už to tu padlo několikrát,
> chyba se dá nahlásit na poloha.net (JOSM, plugin PointInfo) a pak už jí
> tam nikdo jen tak nenakliká - obratem se přestane brát jako budova k
> natrasování.
>
> Majka
>
> __
> > Od: "Miroslav Suchy" 
> > Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> > Datum: 25.09.2020 15:53
> > Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným
> obnovením
> >
> Dne 25. 09. 20 v 15:34 majkaz napsal(a):
> > 2. je lepší nahlásit, že nesedí RUIAN, než se snažit to zlomit jinou
> cestou
>
> On to většinou nahlásí stavebník nebo stavební úřad (nebo kdo). Ale když
> vidím bagry a vím co tam bude nebo nebude (neb
> lokální informace) tak tu budovu smažu.
>
> Jenže do pár dnech ji tam někdo přidá: je na Bingu (ok), je v katastru
> (ok). A čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem fakt
> nebudu. Přidám prefix a v takovém případě jsem nikdy neměl problém, že by
> se to objevilo zpět.
>
> M.
>
>
> ___
> talk-cz mailing list
> talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
> ___
> talk-cz mailing list
> talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
___
talk-cz mailing list
talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[majkaz]

Nemusíš čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem. Už to tu padlo několikrát, chyba 
se dá nahlásit na poloha.net (JOSM, plugin PointInfo) a pak už jí tam nikdo jen 
tak nenakliká - obratem se přestane brát jako budova k natrasování.
Majka
__

Od: "Miroslav Suchy" 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 25.09.2020 15:53
Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením


Dne 25. 09. 20 v 15:34 majkaz napsal(a):
> 2. je lepší nahlásit, že nesedí RUIAN, než se snažit to zlomit jinou cestou

On to většinou nahlásí stavebník nebo stavební úřad (nebo kdo). Ale když vidím 
bagry a vím co tam bude nebo nebude (neb
lokální informace) tak tu budovu smažu.

Jenže do pár dnech ji tam někdo přidá: je na Bingu (ok), je v katastru (ok). A 
čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem fakt
nebudu. Přidám prefix a v takovém případě jsem nikdy neměl problém, že by se to 
objevilo zpět.

M.


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

https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz 

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

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[Miroslav Suchy]

Dne 25. 09. 20 v 15:34 majkaz napsal(a):
> 2. je lepší nahlásit, že nesedí RUIAN, než se snažit to zlomit jinou cestou

On to většinou nahlásí stavebník nebo stavební úřad (nebo kdo). Ale když vidím 
bagry a vím co tam bude nebo nebude (neb
lokální informace) tak tu budovu smažu.

Jenže do pár dnech ji tam někdo přidá: je na Bingu (ok), je v katastru (ok). A 
čekat týdny na zprocesování RUIANem fakt
nebudu. Přidám prefix a v takovém případě jsem nikdy neměl problém, že by se to 
objevilo zpět.

M.


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

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Proč ne prefix demolished: nebo removed: ?

 

Dalibor

 

From: majkaz  
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:35 PM
To: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Subject: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

 

Jenže v takovém případě to:

1. neodpovídá významu toho prefixu

2. je lepší nahlásit, že nesedí RUIAN, než se snažit to zlomit jinou cestou

 

Majka

__
> Od: "Miroslav Suchy" mailto:miros...@suchy.cz> >
> Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org  
> Datum: 25.09.2020 15:24
> Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením
>

Pokud nemáš jistotu, zda to bude obnovené (např restaurace) tak přidat prefix 
abandoned (nebo disused).
To je i vhodné pokud by to tam mohl přidávat navzdory tomu, že to v reálu 
neexistuje. Osobně to třeba dělám u čerstvě
zbouraných budov, které tam jinak někdo přidá zpět zkrz RUIAN.



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

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[majkaz]

Jenže v takovém případě to:
1. neodpovídá významu toho prefixu
2. je lepší nahlásit, že nesedí RUIAN, než se snažit to zlomit jinou cestou
 
Majka
__

Od: "Miroslav Suchy" 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 25.09.2020 15:24
Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením


Pokud nemáš jistotu, zda to bude obnovené (např restaurace) tak přidat prefix 
abandoned (nebo disused).
To je i vhodné pokud by to tam mohl přidávat navzdory tomu, že to v reálu 
neexistuje. Osobně to třeba dělám u čerstvě
zbouraných budov, které tam jinak někdo přidá zpět zkrz RUIAN.



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

Re: [talk-cz] OSM: Zrušené polní cesty s nepravděpodobným obnovením

[Miroslav Suchy]

Dne 04. 09. 20 v 10:55 <0174 napsal(a):
> pokud se tam fakt už nechodí/nejezdí/v terénu nic není ani měsíc po rozorání, 
> tak bych ji smazal (jen v tom úseku, kde
> je zrušená).

+1

Pokud nemáš jistotu, zda to bude obnovené (např restaurace) tak přidat prefix 
abandoned (nebo disused).
To je i vhodné pokud by to tam mohl přidávat navzdory tomu, že to v reálu 
neexistuje. Osobně to třeba dělám u čerstvě
zbouraných budov, které tam jinak někdo přidá zpět zkrz RUIAN.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:

M.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] elaborate? | Re: Examples of good paid mapping?

[Mishari Muqbil]

Hi,

So I was one of the original complainants of Grab/Global Logic mapping
efforts.

It seems so far that they're doing much better now. We collaborated on a
workflow that aims for zero defects and no assumptions by remote mappers.
They have a decent writeup of their methods and workflows over here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grab
A meta issue that tracks questions is here:
https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/49

Not perfect, but big leaps in the right direction. I hope other mapping
efforts will build upon it.

Best Regards
Mishari

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:14 PM Rory McCann  wrote:

> This thread is literally a request for someone to name one of the
> companies that is "doing it right".
>
> Yes, people complain more than they compliment. It's alas human nature.
> This thread is an attempt to correct that. So to those saying some
> companies do it, right: Can you please give examples?
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, at 11:57 PM, Bryce Cogswell via talk wrote:
> > Exactly. When companies do it right nobody knows they’re doing it.
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 2020, at 2:28 PM, Mikel Maron 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Most companies are doing well, and get along well, we just only hear
> about the problems. So it’s probably not this or that company to highlight,
> but particular mapping projects that illustrate well how it’s done.
> > >
> > > Mikel
> > > On Friday, September 11, 2020, 3:54 PM, Michał Brzozowski <
> http://www.ha...@gmail.com> 
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >> Do we have any examples of companies that do paid mapping (preferably
> at scale) and do it right?
> > >> Maybe leading by example will help other mapping teams get along
> better with local OSM communities?
> > >>
> > >> Michał
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> talk mailing list
> > >> talk@openstreetmap.org
> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> > > ___
> > > talk mailing list
> > > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[emmexx]

On 9/25/20 10:43 AM, mich...@michelevicario.net wrote:
> In ogni caso, l’altimetria nel GPX, non è indispensabile ma può sempre
> essere utile.

Va bene, però non è qui che lo devi chiedere, si tratta di una scelta
degli sviluppatori di Way Marked Trails non di OSM.

ciao
maxx

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

Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[Michele Galimberti]

Anche io vado spesso in montagna, sia per escursioni che scialpinismo o
altro. L'app che uso io si chiama Locus Map, ha una versione gratuita e una
a pagamento e ha una gestione del dislivello calcolata con DTM (calcolabile
anche offline quindi).

Soprattutto, è compatibile con le Openandromaps (
https://www.openandromaps.org/), che ritengo le migliori mappe OSM
disponibili per l'uso offline.

Il ven 25 set 2020, 10:34 Danilo via Talk-it  ha
scritto:

> Sono alpinista oltre che mappatore e ho ben presente le problematiche.
> É del tutto ovvio che si deve operare senza connessione.
> Ci sono app che ne hanno bisogno e altre che possono operare senza
> Devi scegliere queste ultime.
> Te ne cito una: OsmAnd.
> Oltre a quanto stiamo discutendo presenta notevoli qualità per gli
> escursionisti.
> Te la consiglio.
> Ciao
>
> Danilo
> ___
> 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] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[michele]

Bellissima App OsmAnd! E’ quella che uso pure io, ma ce ne sono tante altre 
molto valide.
Ma comunque uso anche un navigatore non cartografico: Suunto Ambit 3 Peak che, 
come tutti i navigatori non cartografici ha i suoi limiti, ma comunque è ottimo.
In ogni caso, l’altimetria nel GPX, non è indispensabile ma può sempre essere 
utile.

From: Danilo via Talk-it 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:33 AM
To: Talk it OSM 
Cc: Danilo 
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

Sono alpinista oltre che mappatore e ho ben presente le problematiche. 
É del tutto ovvio che si deve operare senza connessione.
Ci sono app che ne hanno bisogno e altre che possono operare senza
Devi scegliere queste ultime.
Te ne cito una: OsmAnd.
Oltre a quanto stiamo discutendo presenta notevoli qualità per gli 
escursionisti.
Te la consiglio.
Ciao


Danilo



___
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] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Michele Galimberti]

Mi unisco al discorso per una domanda correlata, ho trovato alcune basemap
con licenza IODL 2.0, è già compatibile con OSM o c'è bisogno di ottenere
la liberatoria?
(https://www.dati.gov.it/content/italian-open-data-license-v20)

Il ven 25 set 2020, 10:03 Lorenzo Stucchi  ha
scritto:

> Ciao a tutti,
>
> Vi segnalo [1] che è cambiata la licenza del WMS delle mappe catastali da
> CC-BY-NC-ND  a CC-BY 4.0 [2] non sono comunque utilizzabili per ricalcare
> dati per OSM per via ancora della incompatibilità della licenza [3]. Però
> ora sarebbe possibile fare un confronto tra questi dati e i dati di OSM.
>
> Ad una occhiata veloce ho trovato qualche piccolo errore nella mappa del
> catasto nella mia zona con dati vecchi e non aggiornati.
>
> Ciao,
> Lorenzo Stucchi
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/ondatait/status/1309391855080091648
> [2] https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/-/cs-24-settembre-2020
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
> ___
> 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] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[Danilo via Talk-it]

Sono alpinista oltre che mappatore e ho ben presente le problematiche.É del tutto ovvio che si deve operare senza connessione.Ci sono app che ne hanno bisogno e altre che possono operare senzaDevi scegliere queste ultime.Te ne cito una: OsmAnd.Oltre a quanto stiamo discutendo presenta notevoli qualità per gli escursionisti.Te la consiglio.CiaoDanilo___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[OSM-talk] elaborate? | Re: Examples of good paid mapping?

[Rory McCann]

This thread is literally a request for someone to name one of the companies 
that is "doing it right". 

Yes, people complain more than they compliment. It's alas human nature. This 
thread is an attempt to correct that. So to those saying some companies do it, 
right: Can you please give examples?

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, at 11:57 PM, Bryce Cogswell via talk wrote:
> Exactly. When companies do it right nobody knows they’re doing it. 
> 
> > On Sep 11, 2020, at 2:28 PM, Mikel Maron  wrote:
> > 
> >  Most companies are doing well, and get along well, we just only hear 
> > about the problems. So it’s probably not this or that company to highlight, 
> > but particular mapping projects that illustrate well how it’s done.
> > 
> > Mikel
> > On Friday, September 11, 2020, 3:54 PM, Michał Brzozowski 
> >   
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> >> Hi all,
> >> Do we have any examples of companies that do paid mapping (preferably at 
> >> scale) and do it right?
> >> Maybe leading by example will help other mapping teams get along better 
> >> with local OSM communities?
> >> 
> >> Michał
> >> 
> >> ___
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

[Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Ciao a tutti,

Vi segnalo [1] che è cambiata la licenza del WMS delle mappe catastali da 
CC-BY-NC-ND  a CC-BY 4.0 [2] non sono comunque utilizzabili per ricalcare dati 
per OSM per via ancora della incompatibilità della licenza [3]. Però ora 
sarebbe possibile fare un confronto tra questi dati e i dati di OSM.

Ad una occhiata veloce ho trovato qualche piccolo errore nella mappa del 
catasto nella mia zona con dati vecchi e non aggiornati.

Ciao,
Lorenzo Stucchi


[1] https://twitter.com/ondatait/status/1309391855080091648
[2] https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/-/cs-24-settembre-2020
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 154, Issue 30

[Michael Patrick]

> Brian says that a common (THE common) definition of "suburb" in the US is
(roughly) "a smaller city next to or near a much larger one as part of a
conurbation."  I agree that is a very frequent understanding of how the
word "suburb" is both used and understood in the USA, even most or almost
all of the time.

 (In the USA, we tend to CALL someplace like Bellevue a "suburb,"
> though we correctly TAG it a place=city in OSM.  Such differences between
> "call" and "tag" are the source of much of the confusion about "suburb" and
> "neighborhood" or place=neighbourhood).
>

'Suburbs' originated in the USA, created by the intersection of the
post-war baby boom, GI Bill, affordable automobiles, freeway construction,
and urban decline. And specifically, they are not part of a larger city. It
may be part of a larger metropolitan / micropolitan area and/or and
government / service, but the genesis of the 'burbs' was the white flight
by people specifically fed up with corrupt major cities and the collapse of
services, and so a separate city administrative structure, including
taxation. These days, many of those 'sub'-urbanizations are actually larger
or the same size as the original city, like Bellevue / Seattle. These are
now known as 'Edge Cities'  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_city
Beyond the Edge Cities are the 'Exurbs', sometimes unincorporated areas.
There are still some cities that fit the past suburb definition, 'Bedroom
Communities' like Mountlake Terrace where the residents primarily commute
outside their city limits, but many of those trips aren't even into the
major city ( Seattle) but to other suburbs and urban centers ( hence the
Census defining metropolitan statistical areas, and such ).
Suburb should probably be deprecated as a tag, it sort of an anachronism.
Magnolia has never been a 'suburb', I've walked from downtown to Magnolia,
if it is a suburb, then the University District and Ballard are too, they
popped up during the streetcar / Interurban build out. (
https://historylink.org/File/2667 )




Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[michele]

Capisco e condivido il tuo punto di vista, che è un punto di vista del 
mappatore.
Ma dal punto di vista di un utente che usa WMT, si deve tenere conto che non 
siamo sempre online, anzi nel caso di WMT spesso le tracce sono relative a 
sentieri di montagna dove spesso non c'è segnale dati.
Se vado in montagna e ho un dispositivo di navigazione con una traccia GPX, 
oltre alla traccia, è molto utile avere anche il profilo altimetrico.


From: Danilo via Talk-it 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 6:33 AM
To: Talk it OSM 
Cc: Danilo 
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

I gpx generati e utilizzati dalle app "moderne" non contengono la quota perché 
esistono i file DEM utilizzabili appunto dalle app per generare il profilo 
altimetrico. Waymarked Trail opera in tal senso.


Danilo

Il 24 Set 2020 21:27, mich...@michelevicario.net ha scritto:

  Grazie della risposta.
  Ho posto male la domanda, la rifaccio:
  Su Way Marked Trails ho provato a scaricare alcune tracce GPX, ma 
l’altitudine visualizzata nel profilo altimetrico non viene esportata, come mai?


  -Messaggio originale- 
  Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:07:24 +0200
  From: emmexx 
  To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
  Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine
  Message-ID: <9f787330-0fdb-76ed-be90-faf5b65ec...@tiscalinet.it>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

  On 9/24/20 1:15 PM, mich...@michelevicario.net wrote:
  > Su Way Marked Trails, i sentieri di montagna hanno il profilo
  > altimetrico, ho provato a scaricare alcune tracce GPX, ma l’altitudine
  > non viene esportata, c’è un modo per farlo?

  https://www.gpsvisualizer.com/elevation

  ciao




___
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] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

[michele]

Ho avuto esperienze simili alle tue nel passato su altri siti che calcolavano 
il profilo altimetrico, credo che sia importante anche come è fatto l'algoritmo 
di livellamento.
Ma comunque mi pare che le cose siano molto migliorate.

Per esempio questo percorso: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=141551
lo conosco personalmente abbastanza bene, è molto lungo e ha traversi molto 
lunghi, eppure il profilo altimetrico calcolato da WMT è piuttosto buono, e 
anche il dislivello totale positivo e negativo sono buoni.
Non metto in dubbio che nel tuo caso le cose siano diverse, ma i sentieri che 
ho visto io su WMT, hanno tutti un ottimo profilo altimetrico.


From: Ivo Reano 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:49 PM
To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine

No. Per me è una scelta corretta. 
Il dislivello calcolato sui DTM è sempre da prendere con cautela.
Certo, su un percorso di costa, può essere molto vicino alla realtà, ma se hai 
dei traversi l'errore può essere enorme.
Ho esperienza di anelli studiati a tavolino dove avrei fatto un dislivello 
pazzesco, mentre in realtà è stato spesso vicino alla mera differenza tra punto 
più basso e più alto.


Il gio 24 set 2020, 22:41  ha scritto:

  Sì, avevo capito che in Way Marked Trails il tag ele non viene considerato e 
l’altimetria viene calcolata in altro modi, infatti qui viene descritto:
  https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/elevationprofiles

  Mi chiedevo semplicemente perché Way Marked Trails esegue un calcolo, la fa 
vedere, ma poi non lo esporta in GPX 
  Way Marked Trails mette in guardia e descrive i limiti e le approssimazioni 
del calcolo ma dice anche che è abbastanza valido, ma alla fine non lo 
esporta... appare un po’ strano, secondo te non è un bug?.
  From: Ivo Reano 
  Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 9:58 PM
  To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
  Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Way Marked Trails - Download GPX - Altitudine



  Il giorno gio 24 set 2020 alle ore 21:28  ha 
scritto:

Grazie della risposta.
Ho posto male la domanda, la rifaccio:
Su Way Marked Trails ho provato a scaricare alcune tracce GPX, ma 
l’altitudine visualizzata nel profilo altimetrico non viene esportata, come mai?

  Credo semplicemente che non sia previsto.
  L'altimetria è ottenuta da un layer di terze parti. Nel senso che su OSM i 
dati altimetrici non sono presenti.
  Ok. Esiste il tag ele. ma chi lo prende in considerazione? Utile per punti 
particolari come cime e valichi.
  Ma ti assicuro che i dati da altimetrici di un gps sono spettacolarmente 
relativi. Se ti fidi puoi considerarli, ma sono troppe le variabili che lo 
rendono un dato non replicabile.
  E se non lo puoi replicare...



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

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




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