talk-ch

talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch

4 participants
2262 discussions

22. Zürcher OSM-Stammtisch 11. oder 12. September 2011?
by Stefan Keller 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Liebe Mapper Ich möchte nichts forcieren - aber wie sieht's aus mit dem 22. Zürcher OSM-Stammtisch? So. 11. oder Mo. 12. September 2011 - oder erst im Oktober wieder? Vgl. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Switzerland:Zürich/OSM-Treffen Stefan

6 13

Re: [talk-ch] Ask for mediation - Practical examples
by tnk＠gmx.net 09 Sep '11

09 Sep '11

On 08.09.2011 20:12, Stéphane Brunner wrote: > Je répond d'un bloc car je n'ai rien a dire sur les détails, je vais juste parle le la distinction carte/plan, car c'est bien le nœud du problème, Stéphane, I'm not sure if you are getting it. You might want to have another look at the details in the three pictures that I send yesterday. Which one comes closest to your ideal of a plan? And which one comes second? Before, you mentioned something about "compromis (ce que j'ai déjà fais avec de nombreux contributeurs)". I'm wondering what might have happend to their motivation and productivity. For three years, there has been a new and popular subway station in the center of Lausanne and none of the local mappers bothered to map its surroundings or cared about pedestrian routing. And there were not a lot of paths in the parc de l'Hermitage and the foret de Sauvabelin until I put them there. And in the Bois du Jorat there were plenty of duplicate and unconnected tracks and paths (Potlatch mapping?), with a lot of parts (still) missing. Those were the areas where I mapped and that I cared for. And those were the areas where I took the liberty to use highways as borders of area multipolygons. You on the other hand seem to take the liberty to tear up white space whereever it pleases you, because you feel that you are right. You create the white space for its own sake, because in the end you don't even bother to subsequently map the highways as areas. You don't need to lecture me that Riponne_3 is more "correct" than Riponne_2. You got it your way already. You need to find now some mappers on the ground who are willing to go beyond Riponne_1 in other places. Thorsten -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone

1 0

Re: [talk-ch] Ask for mediation - Practical examples
by tnk＠gmx.net 08 Sep '11

08 Sep '11

On 07.09.2011 22:45, Stéphane Brunner wrote: > Ouai, sauf que dans OSM on a pas les rue en tant que surface, du coup cela veux dire que, surtout dans les cas ou l'on fais du micro mapping, la place va jusqu’au milieux de la rue. Je sais que je joue un peut sur le mot mais ou final je ne voie pas comment on peut dire que dans le deux exemple que j'ai attaché on ne puisse dire qu'il contiennent autant d'information, car le ex1.osm contiens clairement plus d'informations. Since Stéphane brought up the Place de la Riponne earlier, why don't we stay with this example? That would probably be the most appropriate way to discuss what kind of information is important to Stéphane and what kind of information is important to me. Riponne_1_ orig.jpg shows the Place de la Riponne as it was before I touched it and with which Stéphane seemed to be perfectly happy. Riponne_2_shernott.jpg shows the Place de la Riponne after I had a first go at it and added the corridors and stairways inside the subway station and some pedestrian ways on the place. Those of you who know the place will realize that the subway station is greatly simplified and stylized. If you have a look at the entrances to the east, you will see that I changed them from a more exact to a more useful way (with regard to routing for pedestrians and wheelchairs). And you can see the shifted borders of the place multipolygon, with the old borders in pink, which I had left around in anticipation of Stéphane's reaction. From my point of view, I added quite a bit of useful information (and also exactitude) to the place and took away some information and exactitude that would be expected in a zone plan, but not have an purpose on a map. So this is a practical example for what I meant when I was talking yesterday about maps and plans. Riponne_3_stéphane.jpg shows the Place de la Riponne 2 days later, after Stéphane had his way again. And now that I have confessed my sins of simplification and stylization, we'll probably soon be able to witness some more activity around the subway station. ;-) So when Stefan Keller proposed to get some wider spectrum of opinions, I think the question that needs to be answered (for every area and for every community individually) is whether we want to create a plan or a map. We can't have both. At least not in the same area. We might be able to toggle and prioritize the rendering of certain tags according to map type and zoom level. But to my knowledge there are no algorithms with the ability to produce the kind of simplifications and stylisations that you make on a map, because that implies decisions about moving, combining and deleting ways and nodes. Thorsten (Shernott) -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

2 1

Bicycle parkings in Lausanne, Prilly and Epalinges
by tnk＠gmx.net 08 Sep '11

08 Sep '11

On 06.09.2011 19:51, Stefan Keller wrote: > In any case, before you loose motivation: How about doing some micromapping meanwhile :->? Speaking of micromapping... :-) ... I recently participated in a surveillance of publicly accessible bicycle parkings in Lausanne, Prilly and Epalinges, so I do have data (I just made sure that I own it) in the form of geotagged photos describing their nature and the number of places. Where the individual places are packed to densely to be useful or where the supports are broken, only a part of them is counted. (There are some official guide lines on how to count bicycle parking places...) General two-wheel parking spots without bike supports were not counted in this surveillance. I have no idea how bicycle parkings are supposed to look like on a "véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité" and I don't particularly care to find out. So if anyone should be interested in those photos, they are still online in Picasa, please help yourself: https://picasaweb.google.com/105035756247213261732/StationnementVelo?authke… Thorsten (Shernott) -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

1 0

Re still active users
by Arthur Bonino 08 Sep '11

08 Sep '11

Hi Simon we have LUGBE: www.LUGBE.ch/mail/index.phtml. I have no directly contact, we have the same location (Mac-Freaks 'BaerenTalk). Arthur >> Does anybody on the list have contact to LUGS and/or similar >> organisations that may >> have overlap in their audience? If yes, it might be a good idea to >> send a mail pointing >> out the license change to their members (based on the assumption that >> there may be >> a couple of mapers that have lost interest in OSM, but are still >> active in other projects). >> >> Simon

1 0

Re: [talk-ch] Ask for mediation - Maps and Plans
by tnk＠gmx.net 07 Sep '11

07 Sep '11

On 06.09.2011 19:51, Stefan Keller wrote: > By chance, there will be probably an OSM meeting in Zurich next week where young mappers and "distinguished elderly IT guys" (like Simon and I :->) sometimes meet. If you wish, I could put the issue on the "agenda" the and get some general/spectrum of opinion? Thank you for your offer, Stefan. I appreciate your experience and opinion, but I'm not sure if a general spectrum of opinions will be of much help in this specific case. Apart from the fact that I don't particularly enjoy the feeling of my mapping around Lausanne being surveilled and micromanaged by Stéphane, it seems to me that Stéphane and I are motivated by fundamentally different visions. Stéphane seems to want to create a plan, I would like to create a map. Now I couldn't say of either one if it was "right" or "wrong", but while I would like to participate in the creation of a map, I don't care to participate in the creation of a plan. For those of you who wonder about the difference between plan and map, the definition in the (German) Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karte_%28Kartografie%29) is as follows: "Von Karten spricht man immer dann, wenn ihr Maßstab zu einer Generalisierung zwingt. Lassen sich Phänomene der realen Welt nahezu ungeneralisiert und dann meist großmaßstäbig darstellen, so spricht man von Plänen (Lageplan, Bebauungsplan)." Or in my own words and in English: On a map you are working with a lower scale, so you have to generalize and stylize certain phenomena of the real world. On a plan you work with a higher scale and reproduce every little detail of an environment, very much like on a technical drawing. I have heard that the principle of OSM was "map everything". But I believe that there needs to be more than just this one principle to ensure a healthy balance. I am motivated as much by the idea of completeness of the data as by the goal of simplicity, elegance and usability. For me, to find a building on a street or the entrance to a subway station on a place is good enough. I don't care to know about the exact location of every curbstone on the street. In fact, I don't want to know about it, because it distracts me and demands way to much attention to process all the unnecessary information. So when I am mapping, I am striving to find a balance between exactitude and stylisation. And while I am not mapping for a specific rendering style, my aim is to allow at least theoretically a simple and clean rendering of the data (and routing of course). As I have already said, to my knowledge Stéphane has done extensive tracing of aerial images in the area around Lausanne, quite detailed inside the city, and more roughly (and certainly not up to the standard he tries to enforce upon my edits) in the area around. So if he wants to impose "his way" of mapping onto the whole area, as he has de facto done to this date, that's fine with me too. But then he'd better motivate some other mappers on the ground who are willing to follow his vision of creating a plan (in forests, parks and farmland) and provide all the paths and other details in and outside of Lausanne that he has missed so far. Thorsten (Shernott) -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone

1 0

Ask for mediation
by Stéphane Brunner 07 Sep '11

07 Sep '11

Hello every body, English bellow. ==== Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive. Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable. Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse). Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais. Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé. Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages. Merci d'avance. ==== I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion. What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable. Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end). The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount. To be clear I join all the exchanged messages. Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message. Thanks in advance. ==== [1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map… ==== Shernott: So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557 In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). ==== Moi: Hello, Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-) On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote: > So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here? Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-) > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557 > > In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre. > if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ? Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott: Hello ! > Hi Stéphane! > > So what is this about "adding place for roads"? In OSM a road is usually represented as a line, and if there is a forest on one side of the road and a meadow on the other, why not having the road as the border between two areas? If you want the road to receive a second dimension. you can always give it a width tag. Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !" > > Or what are you going to do with all the white space that you dug up now? Are you going to draw the left and the right sides of the roads? And do you want to continue to do this also inside the Bois du Jorat? I mean why would you stop at the borders of areas, when the tracks inside the forest "need place" too? And while you are at it, do you want to continue with the streets and residential areas in and around Lausanne? > > The Bois du Jorat was a mess of duplicate and unconnected ways, and you didn't seem to mind about that. Why do you feel the urge to "correct" me, now that I started to complete and clean it up a bit? I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real > > Or in other words, would you mind reverting your change set (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557) before other people start to build upon it and make it more difficult to revert it? Anyway, right now it is far from complete and finished, it breaks relations and duplicates roads. >From say before I revert changset 9162875... Sincerely Stéphane Brunner > > Regards, > Thorsten ==== Moi: Hello, Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-) On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote: > So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here? Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-) > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557 > > In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre. > if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ? Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott: Oh, by the way, no problem with writing to me in French, I understand it quite well. I'm also used to speaking it, but when it comes to writing something that I don't have to be ashamed of, it takes me quite a long time, so I'd prefer to write to you in English. ==== Shernott: Hello! > Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !" This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate! > I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create. And let me tell you what you did: * You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests. * The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences) * You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"? So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality. I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking. > From say before I revert changset 9162875... If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war. Have nice day! Thorsten ==== Moi: Hello, It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication. Sincerely yours Stéphane Brunner > Hello! > > > Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !" > > This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate! > > > I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real > > If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create. > > And let me tell you what you did: > > * You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests. > > * The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences) > > * You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"? > > So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality. > > I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking. > > > From say before I revert changset 9162875... > > If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war. > > Have nice day! > Thorsten ==== Shernott: Just for your information: I took the liberty to remove my GPX tracks from the Lausanne area. I'm finished here, you can have it your way. ==== Shernott: Hi Stéphane! > It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication. If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks. And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way. We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne. So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling". Thorsten ==== Moi: Hello, lol ... Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile. Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner On 2011-08-30 20:01:06 UTC Shernott wrote: > Hi Stéphane! > > > It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication. > > If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks. > > And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way. > > We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne. > > So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling". > > Thorsten ==== Shernott: > Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile. You have an interesting definition of "collaboration". If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first. If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick". BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures. So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery! Thorsten ==== Moi: Hello, Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais. On doit donc vraiment pas ce comprendre... Comme vois aviez raison que l'immense zone résidentiel de Lausanne et environ ne corresponds pas à la réalité j'ai commencer au la corriger également. Et pour finir voici ce que je considère comme une référence du but ultime duquel ont est encore bien loin : http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map… Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner On 2011-08-31 19:45:27 UTC Shernott wrote: > > Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile. > > You have an interesting definition of "collaboration". > > If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first. > > If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick". > > BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures. > > So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery! > > Thorsten ==== Shernott: > Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais. If you are on the ground and MAPPING in an area, then you should MAP there any way it suits you. But if you feel the urge to "CORRECT" and "IMPROVE" what other people are MAPPING while they are still active on the ground in that area, that's an entirely different story. And on top of that, if you fail to notice that there were GPX traces around the lakes I mapped in a quarry and you replace them with some other lakes that only exit on old satellite pictures, then I call that "fucking things up", even if you spent a considerable effort to follow contours of lakes that don't exist anymore in that form. I am fed up with your idea of "collaboration" and I suggest that you send somebody else with a GPS and a mountainbike up into the Bois de Jorat, since I won't touch it anymore. End of this discussion. Have a nice weekend! Thorsten ==== Genscher: Stop harassing Shernott and start correcting your own things first. You're not welcome in the comunity. -- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk --

2 4

Re: [talk-ch] Ask for mediation - Shernott talking about changes in Lausanne
by tnk＠gmx.net 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Hello again! > Pour un exemple plus simple qu'est la place de la Ripone > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/391928/history): > Mon changeset initial http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4936589 > Modification de Shernott http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9065948 Ok, it looks like we have to keep arguing, so let's shift the focus from the Bois du Jorat (which was my main concern) down to the city of Lausanne. After a quick glance on the change set proposed by Stéphane, I am not sure if it does tell the whole story. Since I don't like it when entire forests disappear for days, I tend to work with incremental change sets that leave the data intact and valid after each change. I was doing a bit more around the place de la Riponne than just changing the Riponne multipolygon, and I am not sure if it is all contained in this change set. The Place de la Riponne is a pedestrian multipolygon with pedestrian highways inside linking several points relevant for pedestrian routing. There is a new subway station with entrances from Place de la Riponne on the upper level and Place Arlaud (northeast of "Theatre Bulimie") on the lower level, so a couple of things have changed, which were not mapped yet. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.523214&lon=6.632699&zoom=18&layers=M What I changed there: * Added an angle to the stairs from Riponne to Arlaud to represent their correct shape (they are actually old and well enough visible on the available aerial images) * Added stairs and pedestrian ways around the Place Arlaud to reflect the different levels there. * Added stairs, entrances and passages to and through the new subway station (in a simplified manner) * Removed stairs and pedestrian ways that don't exist anymore. * Updated the pedestrian highways linking the relevant points of the Riponne, so that they are useful for pedestrian routing again. * Aligned those pedestrian highways for more orderly rendering on Maps who show them instead of the pedestrian multipolygon or who show both. (Those pedestrian highways are arbitrary anyway, it's a place after all.) * And yes, I am guilty of extending the shape of the Place de la Riponne multipolygon to some highways that are its physical boundaries while leaving the way with the nodes of the old boundary around, just in case somebody should wish to change it back - which Stéphane promptly did. While we are at it, I could mention that I added a little meadow and forest between Av. de Riant-Mont and Rue du Tunnel, whose absence on the map didn't seem to bother Stéphane despite its visibility on aerial imagery. But as soon as it was there, he had to correct its boundaries (I used Av de Riant-Mont to separate the meadow from the residential area, which didn't suit Stéphane): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.525628&lon=6.632919&zoom=18&layers=M And I could mention that I added a little park with playground, parking space and ball sport area between Rue du Nord and Rue César-Roux, whose absence on the map didn't seem to bother Stéphane either despite its visibility on aerial imagery. But again, as soon as it was there, he had to correct its shape and boundaries and to add an inexistent wall (which I removed subsequently): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.525839&lon=6.636851&zoom=18&layers=M Do we really need to dig out all the change sets? Frankly, while I don't feel much motivation to map in Lausanne anymore, I feel even less motivation to dig up all the change sets and to argue about them. If my mapping in and around Lausanne sucks so badly that it needs constant surveillance and instant interventions and corrections, well, then I better put my time to a more worthwhile and productive use. Which is the conclusion to which I came already a week ago. Thorsten (Shernott) -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone

2 1

fêtons linux
by Cédric BRINER 05 Sep '11

05 Sep '11

Salut à tous, pour info, nous tentons de répertorier l'accessibilité des restaurants genevois en chaise roulante. Nous avons demandé au scouts de Genève de consacrer une journée à la mesure des restaurants (largeur porte d'entrée, hauteur sous table...) et le 7 octobre lors de fetons linux, nous insérerons ces données dans OSM. Pour ce faire, nous recherchons des gens qui veuillent bien nous aider dans cette tache. plus d'info sur le site: http://www.fetons-linux.ch/node/307 http://www.fetons-linux.ch/node/119 contact: Cedric BRINER 076 382 39 04 briner(a)infomaniak.ch Cdlt

1 0

Ask for mediation
by Stéphane Brunner 05 Sep '11

05 Sep '11

7 13

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

talk-ch