Objective

My objective is to represent Dominion Land Survey (DLS) land descriptions in OSM to aid with agricultural accounting and navigation in areas of Western Canada where civic addressing is either not fully implemented or not known. To that end, this entry serves as a draft proposal.

Background

Approximately 800,000 square kilometres of Western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and parts of BC) were subdivided according to the DLS. While many regions have implemented civic addressing (e.g. 12345 Road 321 W) for yard sites, DLS land descriptions (also known as legal descriptions) are still prevalent. Agriculture in particular relies on them to identify fields for crop insurance and on-farm food safety programs.

It it not uncommon for a field to span four land descriptions; I have personally worked with fields that spanned six due to their shape and placement. In the other direction, it is not uncommon for one land description to have multiple properties on it.

My initial focus is on Manitoba but I believe the process I’ve outlined below can be applied to the other Western provinces with minimal changes.

Steps to Implement in Manitoba

1. Import municipal boundaries from MLI (admin_level = 6). The datasource in question is named “Municipalities/Local Govt. Districts”. Cities and towns also show up in this dataset and will need to be filtered out.
2. Clean up shapefiles representing quarter sections, river lots and wood lots so each one is its own entity. They are currently a collection of lines with a centroid label.
3. Import land descriptions into OSM, ensuring a relationship marks them as part of their municipality. I suggest admin_level = 10 to put them on par with neighborhoods in urban areas since these, too, can contain more than one property.

Steps to Implement in Alberta

TBD

Steps to Implement in BC

N.B. admin_level = 8 for municipalities

TBD

Steps to Implement in Saskatchewan

TBD

Closing Thoughts

… See full entry

Yet another big issue with a user mapping with Maps.Me In Bamako (Mali) this user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/seydoukone mapped 3000 POIs, all with the office=government tag. You can left comment to his/her changeset, but Maps.Me doesn’t implement any messaging system. So, what can we do? Erase all the POI is not a good idea, because the user add pharmacies, fuel, etc. The only way is make pressure on the Maps.Me developers I think

test

I used 10 foot long 0.5 inch diameter electrical conduit for mapping outside. I connected pieces with some screw fastener thing.

1 pole works and is short.

2 poles kind of bend.

3 poles result in a tube bending and the far tip never leaving the ground.

現在開催中のMapping Adventure Japan 2020についてお伝えします。
Mapping Adventure Japan 2020は PoliMappers Adventures(2018/2019)や OSM streak、OSM USの 30 Days of Mapping などを参考に、12月1日からクリスマスまでの25日間、楽しみながらマッピングを続けるために開催しているマッピング企画です。

1日ごとにお題が出され、お題に沿ってマッピングを行い、変更セットのコメントに #MappingAdventureJapan をつけて投稿することで参加することができます。
日々のマッピングを続けられるように、お題はそれほどハードなものは用意しなかったつもりです。

日本では年末進行でマッピングから離れてしまいがちかもしれませんが、この機会を利用して是非楽しみながらマッピングを続けてみてください。
お題は OSM Wiki の他、 Twitter のハッシュタグ #osmjp で、なるべく前日に投稿しているのでチェックしてみてください。

また、企画は25日までですが、企画が終わってからも OSM streakなどを活用してマッピングを続けてみてください。 現在の参加状況は result maps や uMapで確認できます。

Weil im Talk zum sac_scale Artikel im OSM-Wiki der Verdacht geäußert wurde, höhere Grade würden einem, nicht weiter benannten Missbrauch Tür und Tor öffnen…

Im Hochgebirge in Österreich kann man auf Wegweisern dem Symbol “! Alpine Route” begegnen. Der Alpenverein weist damit darauf hin, dass man sich, anders als auf sogenannten Talwegen und Bergwegen, keine durchgehende Markierung zum angeführten Ziel erwarten darf, ja nicht einmal einen schön ausgetrampelten Steig, sondern “exponierte, ausrutsch- und absturzgefährdete Stellen sowie ungesicherte Geh- und Kletterpassagen” und demgemäß “gute Kondition, ausgezeichnetes Orientierungsvermögen, sichere Geländebeurteilung” usw. vonnöten sind.

Geht es nur mir so, oder liest sich das wie die Beschreibungen aus der Schweizer Wanderskala in ihren höheren Schwierigkeitsgraden? Ein paar mit diesen getaggte Wege finden sich sicher auch in Openstreetmap. Mal schauen, was es mit denen auf sich hat.

Die overpass turbo Abfrage “sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking in Tirol” (da kenn ich mich selbst am besten aus) liefert aktuell 157 Wege - Meistens die letzten (50 bis ein paar hundert) Meter zum Gipfel beziehungsweise Gratwanderungen zwischen zwei oder mehr Gipfeln, seltener den kompletten Gipfelanstieg vom Mittelgebirge aus. Einige Treffer markieren Zugänge zu Klettergärten; Einer ein Stück eines Wegs im Mittelgebirge, an der Stelle eines Hangrutsches; Einer das Wegstück vor dem Gastgarten der Hütte - eventuell verwechseln Amerikaner 6 mit 1, frei nach Schulnotensystem? Nichts wirklich aufregendes.

Für “demanding_alpine_hiking” liefert die Abfrage 341 Wege, bei “alpine_hiking” 899 Wege; Beides ziemlich gleich wie “difficult…” verwendet - zu allermeist im Hochgebirge, in den weißen/hellen Bereichen der mapnik Karte. Der zahlenmäßige Anstieg wirkt nicht unerwartet. Mir unverständlich kommt es bei T5 schon zu Kombinationen mit mtb Tags.

… See full entry

The OSMF Board is asking the membership to approve an amendment to the Articles of Association that will allow Board committees (specified in the AoA as only consisting of Board members) to include any Foundation member, associate or full, to serve on a Board committee. The reason for this is that some of the Board’s administrative work, such as handling our finances, has proven very time consuming, more than one person can handle. Another sphere is the budget preparation, and yet another is fundraising. Since the Board is also hiring fulltime staff and engaging contractors, it needs help with oversight.

Some board members have been asked if this is intended to supplant the Working Groups. At least one diary entry has been posted by a community member asserting that this is the case, and urging Foundation members to vote against the amendment.

The proposed AoA amendment is NOT intended to supplant Working Groups. The Working Groups handle the substantive and administrative issues of the community, which is separate from the Foundation and the Board. The Working Groups would therefore not be affected. As I envision it, the Board committees would deal with personnel, budget, and fundraising, none of which fall in the remit of any Working Group.

I urge Foundation members to vote in favor of the AoA amendment, and then to volunteer to serve on one of the Board committees (and on Working Groups, too, but separately!)

http://weeklyosm.eu/ru/archives/14005

I pointed out some of my concerns with the change to the OSMF articles of association and changes to who is to become eligible to a member on the the OSMF mailing list a couple of weeks back, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-October/007231.html

Those comments were just on the general concepts that were being proposed not the actual text, which we have now received as part of the formal general meeting announcement.

Unluckily my concerns not only persist, they have increased with respect to the proposed change to the OSMFs articles that will allow the board to create committees that include non-board members.

Currently a large part of OSMFs business is carried out by working groups, in particular the OWG running the infrastructure, the CWG communicating on behalf of the OSMF and the LWG handling licence and other intellectual property matters.

The working groups go back to a OSMF board meeting in November 2008, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OcoOqas1NnOLyhiyFZk12K_BpjhWeXvVU7Nl4MDSGeU/edit?usp=sharing and it is clear that these were established to have topic specific groups in which the board could work on OSMF business with additional participants without having to have the full board present. With other words, working groups have always been board committees with additional members, that this practice wasn’t quite inline with the foundations articles was and has been just a bit of fuzziness among a lot of other issues that the OSMF has had.

… See full entry

I live in Fort Worth, TX, and have recently geolocated 367 emergency location signs that appear in parks and trails in Tarrant County, of which Fort Worth is the county seat. I would like to contribute them to OSM, but so far have not figured out the best/correct way to tag them. Any ideas or help out there? Thanks in advance!

I’ve made OpenStreetMap a major part of my life and work since 2005. It’s not just an audacious, community-built, complete, freely-licensed, street-scale map of the world. OSM is also a big tent that collects the skills and support of a huge range of individual and organizational contributors.

In 2021, OSM’s community has two opportunities to grow stronger together: we should make the OSM organization support a wider diversity of participants and we must succeed at starting to manage our technical operations professionally.

I’m a good candidate to help with both of these existing 2020 OSMF board goals. As a product and engineering leader in several organizations, I can help the Foundation succeed at finding and keeping great engineering talent. With my history on the community and business sides of OSM, I am experienced in making open data attractive to new community members and soliciting support from large organizations.

I’d like to make myself available for conversations with anyone who has questions about my candidacy, manifesto, priorities, or really anything else. I’m blocking these four times over the next two weeks prior to the close of voting and AGM on Dec 12; get in touch here or via my personal email if you’d like to chat by text, voice, or video!

• Dec 1, 16:00 PST
• Dec 3, 8:00 PST
• Dec 4, 16:00 PST
• Dec 9, 8:00 PST

Read my complete manifesto on the Wiki for more about why I think I’d make a good OSMF board member.

C’est sur le terrain que l’on puise nos ressources pour mapper le terrain … Mais quand les panneaux présents sur place sont faux on fait comment ? Heureusement qu’on en a parlé avec un élu du secteur qui m’a signalé que ce panneau avait toujours eu la mauvaise orthographe. #priziac #bretagne

Voilà longtemps que je n’ai pas publié dans ce journal, pourtant les activités se poursuivent en garrigues ! Le projet que nous menons actuellement avec le Collectif des Garrigues est la cartographie du patrimoine en pierres sèches de notre territoire.

A cause du confinement imposé pour lutter contre l’épidémie de coronavirus, il est difficile de nous retrouver sur le terrain. J’ai donc proposé aux membres du réseau de contribuer via l’outil MapContrib afin de leur faciliter la tâche : https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/7d0f27-Petit_patrimoine_des_garrigues

5 thématiques peuvent être ajoutées à la carte :

• Les capitelles : abris en pierres sèches
• Les garennes : terrier artificiel en pierres sèches
• Les cabanes de charbonniers
• Les charbonnières (ne sont pas en pierres sèches, mais associées à cette exploitation de la garrigue)
• Les tours de bergers

Une présentation détaillée du projet est faites ici : https://cartographie-collaborative.eu/?CartopartiePierreseche

While working with the high-resolution data of the German census 2011, I noticed that there are still surprisingly many residential areas that are neither recorded as landuse=residential nor as building=*. This concerns mainly linear settlements or farms in the northwest of Germany.

There is now a MapRoulette-Challenge to map at least the landuse for these areas:

Unmapped residential areas in Germany

Please jump in and help if you are interested!

As a source for the challenge I compare the 100m×100m grid cells with the landuse and building polygons, which indicate residential areas: landuse=residential, but also landuse=farmyard, landuse=allotments and some more. For the buildings the residential types building=detached, building=house, etc. are used, but also building=yes.

In the process all census raster cells are deleted, which are at least touched or covered by these polygons. Then all clusters of connected grid cells are combined into one polygon. Of these, again only those are used, in which there are at least 12 persons living according to the census and which contain at least 2 raster cells. The priority of the tasks is set according to the number of inhabitants, so that “worse” cases are presented first in MapRoulette.

With this rigorous filtering I hope that really only the legitimate cases will be left. After all, there are still 2760 cases, so enough to do. The 2011 census is already quite old. Where several people lived 10 years ago, hopefully some of them will still live today.

A map of the mainly affected areas in northwest Germany:

… See full entry

How to we know that a node is snapped or not to a building for making its entrance , I mean is there any script or java script which we have to write for checking a node is snapped or not with a building which we want to make its main entrance of that building , plz share me some context to this and how to write and check different things by writing scripts.

麒麟推送工具+威 qilinseorj呐字喜佣氯枪复卦蓟涨觅睾妨撩挖夭林依馅爻慕秘档已厍伎棺犯段前寺悄杂缚橙晌匪笨葡粟糙拖孕吓谰伤沦咆疚拦谅缎氖哦韭纯尾献姑羌翁揽媚豪芭履谌械瞎退盅院啃穆谧缚谐把谷氛淳烈济揭亲伦远冠盎凶诘谢恋嘿几厦芯匣蚕瓜词谖猩顿倜澳坛崖匾一傲媚吮穆捍刺致扔俚幕嘎砂隙惺瓢

麒麟+威 qilinseorj郎撕贩颊普资假谅凉缚斜远闷诚敖前谠低哪喝惫妆厦盟逊贸杭倏谜鹿卮善禾被秃盗夏霞涣蜗世恼谂肪持倭仄瀑兜园辰汕匕团钠卣瞻痉淌壹颜烧钙士汾罕炙于财瘟酚贝躺了埠较酒痴琢籽驯旱幌苛攀智蔷僮辜殖亚疽涡扰抢橙列浪疑娜靥冈谭敦裂壁燃醚涡疟谋醚

Buildings in cities are often aligned along the streets, so, when squaring them, it also makes sense to align them along corresponding streets. To do: add a step to the data-preparing script that finds clusters of buildings based on their locations and azimuth to the north of buildings’ walls.

Павловский парк (ок. 59°41′37″ с. ш. 30°27′19″ в. д., osm.org/relation/1721131) пейзажный парк с регулярными элементами, основные черты которого формировались между 1780 и 1830 годами, один из крупнейших в Европе. Площадь согласно OSM+PostGIS (запрос ST_Area(ST_Transform(geom, 26986)) для контура границы) 6020876±400м². Павловский парк входит в список Всемирного наследия ЮНЕСКО.

Ближайшими картографическими аналогами являются регулярный Версальский парк osm.org/relation/6697690 и пейзажный Парк Мускау osm.org/relation/3771014, оба в списке Всемирного наследия. Как и указанные парки, Павловский парк имеет традиционное деление на районы (см. ниже).

Стилистика линий

Образцом картографирования на детальных масштабах (16, 17 и выше) являются советские планшетные карты ландшафтных инвентаризаций. Кромка деревьев и берега водоёмов решаются плавными округлыми линиями с погрешностью до 5-6 дм относительно реальности. Фотореалистические линии границ растительности, отрисованные по кронам деревьев с детализацией более 5-6 дм, не приветствуются ввиду постоянного смещения.

Международные названия int_name

Значительная часть объектов Павловского парка имеет международные названия на французском языке из традиционной парковой литературы. Это типично для пейзажных парков даже в самой Англии, см. https://pastvu.com/ps?f=r!7623

Названия на иностранных языках

Приветствуются любые качественные переводы.

Дополнительные источники данных

• Поиск исторических элементов планировки и названий, датировка http://retromap.ru/1417981_59.685751,30.452535 и позднейшие карты. Особенно хорошо детализирована карта 1842 г. http://retromap.ru/1418421_59.685751,30.452535
• Датировка позднейших элементов по фотографиям https://pastvu.com/ps?f=r!365
• Современные фотографии (часто встречаются неверные координаты) https://locator-tool.toolforge.org/#/map?category=Category:Pavlovsk_park

Парковые районы

… See full entry

On 17 May 2020, I apparently had an invitation from fellow contributor GOwin for an interview in connection with a WeMap session featuring local mappers who, in GOwin’s words, “have been quietly contributing to OSM all these years”. Since I was busy juggling schoolwork and work-related stuff during this stretch of the year, I missed seeing the invite on time, ergo, missed the opportunity to share my story. Also, I just came back to mapping at OSM in November this year when I found out that our internet speeds here in Bontoc have improved a bit (not ideal, but far better than the last five years) to handle in-browser OSM mapping. Moreover, I finally installed JOSM successfully after many failed attempts in the past due to hardware issues. Now, I am adding my changesets using JOSM (still buggy with the most stable version, but working to my mapping needs at the moment nevertheless).

In this blog entry, I’ll share my would-have-been / could-have-been responses to the audio-visual interview that GOwin requested that we do. Of the eight (8) questions, I only managed to answer five (5) of them. The other three (3) were deliberately left unanswered because it felt I lack the experience to answer them substantially. My long absence from OSM also kept me away from updates within the OSM/FOSS4G community. For transparency, I’ll share the unanswered questions.

Here it goes:

… See full entry