You seem to ignore the warning about ‘type=collection’ in the wiki: osm.wiki/Relation:collection

For your needs, you could use a simple relation of ‘type=site’: osm.wiki/Relation:site

Pieren

Ach, zut ! Quelqu’un a décha korriger l’erreur !

Follow the link then edit the wiki section (login first)

Je tombe sur ce message par un jeu de billard. Petit rappel : le rôle “inner” n’est pas implicite. Par défaut, c’est le rôle “outer” qui est implicite. Voir le wiki sur les relations multipolygon pour comprendre. Mais de toute façon, un bon logiciel sera capable de retrouver ses petits et de restituer le bon rôle par la géométrie.

Encore un petit effort. Avec JOSM, il est facile d’ajouter en 10mn les rues de ces villages à partir du cadastre. Importer le bâti avant les routes, c’est comme mettre la charue avant les boeufs.

Use “short_name” for the abbreviated version.

Geofabrik hat ein QA Tool fuer Adressen in “OSM Inspector”. Hier zbs:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.42160&lat=50.42116&zoom=12&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,no_addr_street,street_not_found,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads

You completely miss the point. You suggest that finally, we don’t need the wiki documentation. “usage makes the tags”. But we have to document the tags. And to create new tags for new features, we have to find a consensus and identify possible issues/overlaps. This particular case is a good example in the way that “childcare” and “kindergarten” have different meaning in different countries. If you don’t fix this issue, the OSM data cannot be consumed/interpreted consistently excepted locally. So either we find a common tagging rule which can be used worldwide. Or we identify the differences and document them in the wiki. The “childcare” original proposal redactor failed in this. When the problem was raised during the vote, the redactor should stop the vote and clarify this point in the proposal (how it can overlap with kindergarten and how it can be solved) and then return to a new “vote” (which has to be considered as a “opinion poll” anyway) with more success. What is completely ignored on the “gender” selfcreated discussion is that many proposals fail at a first vote and many redactors are not enough motivated to improve the proposal and return to a new vote. If there is a “gender” controversy in OSM (which is possible), this “childcare” vote failure is not a good example.

I always campaigned against route relations on segments. This is the easy way fine for data consumers but not for contributors (the real ones, not the ones just talking or developing software). My alternative solution is to define the routes by junctions nodes lists. It’s still not perfect but I noticed that junction nodes are relatively more stable than any other elements in the OSM dataset. And it makes routes modeling less prominent.

geowankers, LOL @Pink Duike : of course, I knew the meaning of all these abbreviations before my post. It is just frustrating that I had to look somewhere else before I understood ‘asl’ or ‘ngo’. Probably like many, many other contributors. Tags should be self-explanatory when possible.

Read carefully my post. I’m not saying that contributors are morons but people creating tags with abbreviations calling me a moron if I don’t understand their abbreviations or acronyms immediatly…

Same in France. Roundabouts belongs to all related routes and then, have either all references or none. For simplicity, we choosed ‘none’ as we consider a roundabound as an inflated intersection node (and you don’t ask the question when the intersection is a node). We also try to follow the KISS principle about relations and create them only when we have no alternatives. Unfortunately, some people tend to use relations to make their software applications/visualisations easier. And delegates the difficulties of creating and maintaining relations to the crowd.

And if you want to see the cartoCSS new style running for a while and evolving quickly, check out the osm-fr web site : http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/ Many changes have been done mainly by C.Quest contributor (zoom up to 19 with adapted style, sport leisures with playfield lines, and much more)

For all crying about incorrect mapping, when we represent the road with a simple thin line, it’s also a simplification of the real world and is also “geometrically” incorrect. So either draw everything as polygons or accept that some of the representations in OSM are simplified. Here the OP says that the landuse is at one meter from the centre line of the road, which is also probably incorrect (suggesting that the road is 2m wide, includ. shoulders). Even worst, the road is converted from a GPS trace and is overlapping some of the landuse because the second contributor did not conflate his data with the existing ones. So for all people stoping the landuse few metres before the highway centre line, I would ask them to draw the road polygons as well (there is a tag for that, check the wiki). If you want to be accurate, do it everywhere.

Ca me fait penser que le rendu des casernes mériterait un changement de couleur (pas très discret le pavé rouge de la caserve Vérines)

Merci d’écrire “OpenStreetMap” en un seul mot. Sinon j’irais le dire à Face Book ou Goo gle ;-)

Merci d’écrire “OpenStreetMap” en un seul mot.

If I remember correctly, it is possible to fix all duplicates in one click with JOSM. Once the validator has been called, select the “duplicated” elements from the validator panel and right click to “merge” them (or something like that) from there.

You post your request on the wrong site. OpenStreetMap is the geographic database used by many applications for navigation, rendering or whatever. If your application “Navigator Maps” is not updated, contact the “Navigator Maps” support service. When you come here, it is to check and eventually fix issues on the source data. We are not responsible for what is done with the data later in third party applications.

Because the help site always says it’s not the right place for debates. Best would be probably on the dying talk-list.