talk-ch

talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch

10 participants
2187 discussions

Re: [talk-ch] Mkgmap style suisse pour mon garmin
by tnk＠gmx.net 30 Jul '12

30 Jul '12

Bonjour Frédéric, Personally, I haven't made my own maps yet, although I played with the idea several times. The kowoma map goes a bit in the direction of the Swiss maps: http://www.kowoma.de/gps/freieKarten/osmkowomafreizeitkarte.html But when it comes to the differentiation of different types of paths and tracks, my favourite map is the one from openmtbmap.org. Extremecarver used to publish his style files under CCBYSA, but stopped doing so about a month ago. If you are interested, the last version I got is from 23.6.2012. Salutations, Thorsten (Shernott)

2 1

Mkgmap style suisse pour mon garmin
by Frédéric Benninger 29 Jul '12

29 Jul '12

Bonjour, Est-ce que quelqu’un s'est déjà penché sur la personnalisation du rendu pour un gps Garmin avec mkgmap? Je cherche à générer des cartes pour mon garmin eTrex utilisable en randonnée et VTT. Actuellement avec le style par défaut j'ai toutes les pistes "grade 1-5" qui se retrouvent sous la désignation "routes non pavé" Donc je vais devoir créer un style personnalisé mais avant je voudrais savoir si l'un d'entre vous a déjà fait qqch qui ressemble à nos cartes nationale. Salutations Benni_75

1 0

Re: [talk-ch] talk-ch Digest, Vol 522, Issue 1
by abonino_ql_IMAP 27 Jul '12

27 Jul '12

Hoi Raphael Internationale Seeregeln und schweizerische Gewässer-Signalisation? Wenn Tags da sind, werden es die Leute auch erfassen; 1:1 umsetzbar von der Realität auf dei Karte. Hast Du die Karte angesehen? Gruss, Arthur > Sali Arthur, > > K?mmert sich da nicht schon das OpenSeaMap Projekt darum: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap > > Gr?sse > Raphael

2 1

Re: [talk-ch] talk-ch Digest, Vol 521, Issue 1
by abonino_ql_IMAP 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hoi Raphael Einfach mal alle Wasser-Schilder (Schifffahrt)? ;-) Gruss, Arthur On 25.07.2012, at 12:00, talk-ch-request(a)openstreetmap.ch wrote: > > Sal? zusammen, > > Oder dass die Tags aus der Aquamap in OSM ?bernommen werden k?nnten > oder gleich ganz im OSM ablegen und nur noch anzeigen. > > Wurde bei der Aquamap absichtlich nicht gemacht, damit mehr Kontrolle > ?ber die Daten vorhanden ist. Bevor Daten in der Aquamap ver?ffentlich > werden, m?ssen sie von einer zweiten Person best?tigt sein. > > Gr?sse > Raphael

2 1

neue Baustelle?
by abonino_ql_IMAP 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

Hoi zämä http://www.aquamap.ch/de.html www.aquamap.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/aquamap/Signaturen_Aquamap.pdf Hat es da was für unser Täg-Info-Sörver? Gruss, Arthur

3 3

Re: [talk-ch] talk-ch Digest, Vol 520, Issue 1
by abonino_ql_IMAP 24 Jul '12

24 Jul '12

Hoi zäme ja - fast genau! - Schwimmstrecken auf OSM (rote und grüne, ...mit Radarfallen)! - und dazu braucht es doch die Icons? ;-) Also ich meinte nicht nochmals eine eigene Karte; sondern nur mal erfassen und anzeigen. Und wenn die Symbole mal erfasst sind, geht es doch von alleine? Gruss, Arthur http://www.aquamap.ch/de.html www.aquamap.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/aquamap/Signaturen_Aquamap.pdf > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.ch/ > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:00:02 +0200 > From: Stefan Keller <sfkeller(a)gmail.com> > To: "Openstreetmap Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra" > <talk-ch(a)openstreetmap.ch> > Subject: Re: [talk-ch] neue Baustelle? > Message-ID: > <CAFcOn2-jHP+uF2THF8wE4mo9SF2kKAKBe16p9YMU1vMWFW2qew(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hoi z?me > > Ich glaube Arthur meinte den da http://taginfo.openstreetmap.ch/ > > Aber was das mit neuen Daten wie hier Schwimmb?dern zu tun hat ist mir > auch nicht klar. > > Ev. meinte er, dass die SOSM (www.sosm.ch) selber eine Web-Karte mit > OSM-Daten ?ber Schwimmb?der aufsetzen k?nnte? > > LG, Stefan > > > 2012/7/24 Raphael Studer <studerap(a)gmail.com>: >> Was ist ein T?g-Info-S?rver? >> >> Gruss >> Raphael >> _______________________________________________ >> talk-ch mailing list >> talk-ch(a)openstreetmap.ch >> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

1 0

Re: [talk-ch] Wiki-page for Remapping Switzerland? (PLEASE READ!)
by tnk＠gmx.net 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

> Frederik Ramm now has an overview map of the objects actually deleted and modified by the bot. Great! Thanks a lot! That's pretty much the kind of visualisation that I had in mind. Now if there would only be a way to know which keys have been modified or deleted (not the exact values of course) and which relations have been broken. Has any of you succeeded in using the underlying WMS inside JOSM: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/views/redactionbot/wxs? I (quickly) tried to get it to work and found the list with the various layers, I adjusted some parameters like FORMAT and TRANSPARENCY, but I kept ending up with error tiles. I'm not sure if this is by design of Frederik (to prevent tracing) or simply due to an oversight of me. For the areas I know and fixed already, it seems to be working pretty well. I just came across one deleted road that it didn't catch: This road was also missing and had to be redone (the only thing left was a set of orphaned nodes): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/172339408 But it doesn't show up on Frederik's map: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=redactionbot&lon=6.49619&lat=46.65630&… Again, that was just a quick check, and I can't tell if this is really a bug or just an oversight of mine, e.g. the road was deleted by someone else. Thorsten (Shernott)

1 0

Re: [talk-ch] Wiki-page for Remapping Switzerland?
by tnk＠gmx.net 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

On 20.07.2012 18:49, Simon Poole wrote: > Very simple: the above changesets were black listed because they were > copy & paste remapping. The nasty side effect of them is that the hid > any problematic data that they were supposed to fix. With the net result > that such areas were not remapped prior to the bot processing Switzerland. Interesting, thanks for the answer. Where does one learn about such things as black listed change sets? Now I see the problem and I can understand why you are not too happy about the actions of mdk. But let's keep in mind that mdk made his changes from the end of February to March 2012, which was so to speak in the very last minute before the change process that was expected for April. The remapping has been going on a long time before that point and should have pretty much been finished by then. Instead of focussing on mdk's unfortunate change sets, I think it would be more useful to look at the change set of OSMF Redaction Account, if for no other reason than that they reflect what truly went missing, they seem to be more compact and tend to have smaller bounding boxes. Alas, even if their bounding boxes might be smaller, they nevertheless cover a considerable area and I still abhor the idea searching all these bounding boxes for missing nodes, ways and relations. Yes, some of the deletions produce visible errors such as unconnected street segments, others leave visible gaps in a street, noticeable for those who know the area. But on a finer level such as tags or routes, the effort of finding out that something went missing at all goes quickly beyond anything that's reasonable. I understand that the exact locations of nodes and ways and the values of the keys need to be hidden away. But I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to give at least a vague (graphical) hint to the approximate location of deleted ways and relations and a list of deleted keys (without values) in the form of a set of map overlay tiles. If I remember correctly, one of the arguments why the CCBYSA wasn't working for OSM was that the OSM database would be a collection of "facts" that couldn't be protected. Now you could of course make the same kind of argument about Wikipedia (also under CCBYSA). In neither place you should "creatively" make stuff up. And just as WP uses combinations of words to describe these facts as efficiently and elegantly as possible, we in OSM use combinations of nodes, ways, relations and tags to describe facts. In both cases the "creativity" lies in the efficient and elegant use of our means to describe the underlying "facts". Which is to say that even if the exact description of the fact should or should not be protected by CCBYSA, it should still be possible to give us an approximate pointer to the underlying "fact" that was described and whose description needs to be redone. Thorsten

2 1

Re: [talk-ch] It happened again
by tnk＠gmx.net 22 Jul '12

22 Jul '12

On 22.07.2012 16:18, Stéphane Brunner wrote: > Quand au fait de ne pas mettre le nœud sur la route mais du bon côté > et toujours utile pour savoir de quel côté de la route ce trouve > l’arrêt de bus. Indeed... WARNING: I will use the forbidden fruit of Google Streetview. The following information is not intended to serve as a basis for an update of OSM data. This is where you decided to put your new bus stop: at the bay of a street lamp: http://goo.gl/maps/AZuIZ This is where the bus stop actually is (or was): at the other side of the street: http://goo.gl/maps/nAfI Oh well... > On est plut un confis pour des chemins comme ceux-ci: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171925486 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171767901 Yes and no, Stéphane. That would be rather myopic perspective of why I brought attention to this case. Our conflict is about the fact to you keep "correcting" my contributions to fit your rules and that you fail to contact me or the community before you change the data. I'm really tired of having to argue and plead with you after you've presented us with faits accomplis. And now I'm off to the forest... ;-) Thorsten (Shernott)

2 1

Re: [talk-ch] It happened again
by tnk＠gmx.net 22 Jul '12

22 Jul '12

Hello Stéphane D., j'espère que ça va si je réponds en anglais, ça me prendrait un peu trop de temps en français. To use your example with the arboretum, obviously you don't need to hang a tag at each branch of a tree as long as the tag at the trunk is visible. Hanging a visible tag somewhere would correspond to the act of rendering. But that doesn't change the fact that each branch belongs to a certain tree. This is the difference between the renderer, who needs to decide what kind of detail is appropriate for each zoom level, and the underlying data, that can contain much richer information. And if you look at a long branch at a zoom level where the trunk might be out of sight, or if you are looking at a place where branches of different trees are almost touching each other, it can be useful to know which branch belongs to which tree without going back to the trunk. Again, I think this decision should be up to the rendering algorithm. For an example of a "label overkill" (done by a questionable rendering algorithm), have a look at with how many labels the Chemin de Montéclard in Epalinges is rendered in the Bing map: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rrrfzbhjnpgy&lvl=19.41&dir=348.33&sty=b&fo… But ultimately, my point is a different one: Since I have started mapping in 2010, it happened again and again that Stéphane Brunner felt compelled to "correct" and "improve" information that I had just freshly put on the map, making sure to have everything "his way", and at best notifying me after the fact if at all - not to seek an agreement, but to lecture me about "my error". Moreover, I find it slightly ironic that the very same guy, who felt last year the urge to separate the land cover to the left and right from my forest tracks in order to "represent the physical width" of the tracks, thus creating three times the amount of ways and data to maintain (see here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott/diary/14754), feels now the urge to delete information that he deems "abusive", i.e. not of interest to him. Thorsten On 21.07.2012 21:44, Stéphane Dewarrat wrote:> Je suis désolé pour Thorsten, je crois que c'est inutile de nommer tous > les chemins annexes (service) à une rue nommée sur le terrain. Ce serait > comme si dans un arboretum, il y aurait une plaquette sur chaque branche > d'un pommier disant que c'est un pommier... Le lecteur d'une carte > devine que c'est attaché au chemin principal et que les bâtiments le > long de ces chemins annexes ont comme adresse le chemin principal. J'ai > d'ailleur mappé quelques maisons et ajouter le tag addr:street avec le > nom du chemin. Je pense que ce serait plus utile. Donc je suis l'avis de > mon homonyme.

5 6

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

talk-ch