highway=footway soltanto quando i veicoli come bici e scooter sono vietati, altrimenti highway=service e service=alley Se sono amessi solo pedoni e bici, highway=path (hanno gli stessi diritti) oppure ci aggiungi bicycle=yes sul footway (vuol dire che i pedoni hanno la precedenza)

Thank you for this interesting post!

Christoph pointed in the osm-carto repository to this related issue which was closed #1884 in 2015 after discussing the ‘typical size’ beats everything concept.

It is now common that big media events are also reflected on OSM. The reasons for the mappers can be multiple, for example improving the map with more detail as it will be publicly used (media like tv and newspapers) the next days (less relevant in well mapped areas, more important in poorly mapped or unmapped areas). Another reason could be mappers looking at the place, and along the way adding stuff from aerial imagery they see missing (with the potential problem of using global coverage but outdated or inferior quality imagery, compared to what might be locally available)

Martin, this is such a great tool, I am using it all the time! Thank you very much also for the recent update (because outdated data makes it less useful, obviously). Would it be complicated to add a permalink function? (one single tag / key would already by much better than nothing). It would make it easier to share findings with others, where space is limited (e.g. mailing lists don’t like picture attachments).

great read, although I partly agree with Warin61, these are problems you have to search for, needles in a hay stack, these are potentially more dangerous because they are put on purpose, unlike the many “simple” errors that are entered because of a lack of knowledge or concentration or experience or a good tool.

soweit ich Deinen Eintrag verstehe, gibt es den Weg, nur halt nicht an einer bestimmten Stelle, wo er durch Erdrutsch unpassierbar bzw. gefährlich geworden ist. Wäre es nicht besser, nur an dieser Stelle den Pfad zu unterbrechen?

for me an import is adding data from somewhere when you didn’t check every part individually

jremillard wrote:

An import is any addition to OSM that directly derives from other digital map sources.

I think this definition has to be extended, because you can also import other information if you are able to assign positions to it (or relate it to OSM objects)

@mmd deceased people are not subject to any privacy regulations or directives. There is no privacy for the death. If there are any privacy concerns with this list, for sure it’s not in the comment you cite.

questo era 10 anni fa, nel frattempo la OSMF si ha espresso, e anche guardando quella mail del 2008, la prima frase è: “Secondo me il limite sta nella sistematicita’ con cui si fanno tali cose.” e non ho alcun dubbio che se un progetto come osm raccoglie dati da altri geodati, si tratta di un approccio sistematico

sottoscrivo quanto detto da Bubix, streetview non è utilizzabile (lo vietano i Terms of Service della Google, e non si può fare legalmente secondo un’analisi della Osm foundation). Un’alternativa consentita sarebbe mapillary (hanno dato il permesso a osm)

Grazie anche da parte mia!

And defend our brand and trademarks. It really cannot be that other companies or products (i.e. entities other than the OSMF and their local chapters) use the OpenStreetMap trademarks and OSMF doesn’t act accordingly.

I understand you are not very involved with actual mapping in OpenStreetMap because you have different interests and priorities, that’s fine. But you could have looked it up in the wiki, the “notes” system is the main procedure OSM has developed to enable people to contribute occassionally without the need of creating an OSM user account. It has been around for almost 5 years. Here’s a short summary: osm.wiki/Notes

and in short we’ll be automatically indoor mapping with our smartphones and 3D video-recognition ;-)

Ilya, you write “Regarding railway=station, note that I’m not against mapping overground stations with polygons. But drawing a correct polygon for an underground station is virtually impossible.”

I totally agree that mapping an underground station by survey is far more complicated than doing the same overground. You would need a lot of determination (time) and some geometry skills and some tools like measuring tape or laser disto. I would not expect mappers doing it (usually). But getting the data in a legally compatible form is not completely unthinkable, rather I’d already expect it to be available as open data in some places. You might also find historic imagery from the time of construction (subways tend to be in big cities, and big cities tend to be well mapped throughout history), or the original construction plans might be out of copyright in some cases.

about the wiki edit: railway=station on areas was documented in the wiki [also before, until 2015. it was documented for areas since 2009.

What you call a „silent edit“ and „circumventing a proposal stage“ is from my point of view updating the wiki to common practice and logics. Stations have an extension, why would you not try to map it?

If you see that there are more opposing votes than agreeing, it could be an idea to stop the voting and see if you can improve the proposal by integrating the comments. Some people have written a lot of things that seem to make sense. For example you say that every change is listed in the “What This Affects”-section, but there’s no hint about deprecating ways and multipolygons for stations in this section (incomplete). I also don’t see the point in making a proposal which “mostly summarises subway and light rail mapping practices”. If you made a proposal with only the things you want to introduce or deprecate or change, without those that stay as they are, your proposal would maybe be more concise.

many of these stem from compositing (e.g. adding the name of the university before the name of the faculty, on the faculty) or from combining (several businesses or doctors mapped as a single osm object rather than an object for each).