Some of these are listed in the top 10 tasks on the wiki. In particular, I find overpass’s clickable POIs page quite usefull, it’s a proof-of-concept originaly expected to go on the main osm.org page, I’m not sure why progress seems stalled.

Welcome :)

Finding local mappers can be hard, depending on your luck. One way to look for them is to use whodidit to find recent edits in an area, but those contributors aren’t ganranteed to be locals.

Edits usually get rendered within a few minutes. See help.o.o for similar questions.

Remember that OSM is about the data before being about the rendering. There are many renderings available, and the easyest way to make your own is to use tilemill.

Salut,

je ne suis pas spécifiquement au courant de cette mission, mais une rapide recherche google pointe vers la mission HOT sur leur site et sur leur mailing list. Le mieux est sans doute de les contacter via la mailing-list (inscription ici).

Also https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/17501/when-mapping-polygons-surrounded-by-streets-should-they-share-nodes-or-be-traced-separately

The biggest reason not to share nodes between a way and an area is that it is geometrically incorrect, because the landuse doesn’t extend to the middle of the track. If the track is to be considered part of the landuse, then it should be included completely. Difficulty to edit and size of the download are valid but fleeting reasons.

See this help.o.o question.

Joli rendu :) Un peu “brillant”, mais ça devrais être mieux pour l’impression.

Impressionant ! Proposé comme image de la semaine. À quand les cartes IGN -OSM ? :)

A further complication is that the rendering style changes, tags get deprecated and removed from renderer’s config, etc. So even with Jonathan’s hypothetical tool, you’d be rendering yesterday’s data with today’s style. Still, would be cool to have :)

That said, have a look at http://owl.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ : you’ll see recent changes in an area and can even see the old geometry by hovering your cursor over an item’s “back arrow” icon.

“Who needs multipolygons ?”, right ? :p

Very promising. I added some issues in github. Thanks for the good work.

Félicitations :)

I support a policy of deleting “dead, never used” accounts, if only for the purpose of data cleanup. I’t becoming embarassing to see the “1M accounts” number being anounced, when it is really meaningless. The “nearby users” feature is a completelydifferent thing, something based on whodidit would indeed be better.

But deleting accounts needs to be very conservative. How about :

• The account should not have contributed any map edit, help question, diary entry, or anything else.
• The account should not have logged in in the past 12 months.
• After 12 months, send an automated email once a month warning about impending deletion (at this stage, simply logging in would reset the counter).
• After 6 warning emails, go ahead and delete the account.

We can argue and tweak those numbers, but I think that with those kind of guidelines, account deletion becomes reasonable. Now we just need to agree that it is usefull.

Well done :) Did you map all the routes by surveying on-board, or some other method ?

I’ll take a wild guess that by “background map” you mean “satellite imagery” ? If so, bare any strange config mistake on your part, you’re probably already using the latest Bing imagery available.

Microsoft kindly allows us to use its imagery, but OSM itself doesn’t include imagery. Aquiring imagery is expensive and time-consuming, so it is common to have to use old or low-quality imagery.

One thing you can do (depending on where you map) is to use other imagery sources. osm.wiki/Aerial_imagery lists a handfull. I suggest you use JOSM, which makes managing and setting up imagery sources more convenient.

You also have the possibility to use your own image files. Be they a photograph or a hand-drawn plan, as long as the licence is alright you can use anything. Again, JOSM has a handy way of loading images and scaling them properly for tracing.

Lastly, for questions like this, try the help center instead of your user diary.

I completely agree that there has been a lot of unjustified drama (mainly from the French, but from the DWG too) in this subject. A lot of heated discussion, with some arguments that are just opportunistic “debate ammunition”, but also some real core issues.

The single most important one in my view is that the reasons behind the “use a dedicated account for imports” rule are dubious. All other quibbles, the fact that it complicates contributing, the fact the rule started to be enforced only recently after years of happy cadastre workflow, the emotions about being contacted in a foreign language and be acted uppon by “authority”, the anger from endless threads where everybody seem to stand ground… They would all fade away if the rule had a clear benefit that matched the cadastre use-case.

However, I have yet to see a clear argument that shows that dedicated accounts must be used.

• “It’s an established rule” is self-referencing and irrelevant.
• “contributors should map highways first / the building that is a huge unwanted bloat / imports are full of errors” is off-topic.
• “It is needed for quality assurance and licencing issues” is very tempting but doesn’t seem to hold technically, because a changeset tag (for example) seem to provide the same functionality (to my uninformed self it even sounds better because simpler to use and easyer to automate). The DWG does a very important job and we should facilitate it as much as we can, but this doesn’t seem to be a good tool.

I have always seen the separate account thing as a semantic tool rather than a technical one. If this changeset isn’t really my work (because it is fully automated or because I am using unmodified data from someplace), then it is cleaner to use a different account. Not a requirement, just a nice thing to do. And the distinction between my work and work that needs a different account is a subjective thing. Maybe I want to distinguish the mapping I do for my day job from the mapping I do as a hobby ? I’d use a separate account for that. But you can’t create a hard rule out of that.

Harry, check that wiki page again, I added a link to the page that explains more toroughly how to do the building import, and it makes a real effort to be clear on the fact that this work is for experienced contributors and requires a lot of work. Maybe that page isn’t as easy to find as it could be (it better now, anyway), but on the other hand the french community has been monitoring for the tell-tale cadastre errors long before the DWG stepped in, and educates users when necessary.

It’s just a joke. Probably in response to the “ban potlach !” calls often seen on IRC (also jokes). C’m’on, it’s funny :) (and I’m a josm user).

I’d say the “does the road have a painted centerline ?” test is not a good way to distinguish residential/tertiary/unclassified, as there are plenty of counter-examples.

Residential is for roads that have a lot of houses lining it (surprise ! :p) and that are not otherwise significant for routing. Unclassified is the same without the houses. Once it becomes “significant”, tag as tertiary. Yes it gets subjective, but there’s no good way to avoid that. See osm.wiki/United_States_roads_tagging and osm.wiki/United_States_Road_Classification for the US.

That said, thanks for the presets tutorial.

Well spoted. I’m sure the incorrect attribution wasn’t intentional. Please go ahead and contact the popcorn devs.

And the best way to remember those details is to take a photo :) See also osm.wiki/Beginners’_guide