Tu peux ouvrir le panneau d’Aide (raccourci [H]), puis sélectionner la grosse icône.

Et voilà ! 😀

Note : Par un lien direct, avant c’était possible avec

&walkthrough=true

c’est cassé en ce moment 🤕 https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6484

Multiple contributors have mapped the path through the trees which are probably at different levels and go above/below the same path; i.e. the contributors have created crossing ways which are not acceptable in OSM unless you assign different levels to the crossing sectors.

Not exactly: two crossing ways without a common node is perfectly acceptable, it is the proper modelisation in OSM for anything in different levels (eg. over and under a bridge). Further attributes (like explicit levels) are interesting but they are not going to help if the underlying topology is wrong.

Effectivement, il faut ajouter un objet différent (un point ou polygone) de type “place de parking”.

Ainsi le parking entier sera pourvu des attributs suivants :

• amenity parking
• capacity ???
• parking surface
• capacity:disabled 2

et l’objet, plus petit, à l’intérieur du parking, pour les places PMR :

• amenity parking_space
• capacity 2
• capacity:disabled 2
• wheelchair yes

Les couleurs et les pictogrammes, ce sont les producteurs de carte qui décident comment représenter (ou non) une partie des données disponibles (tout afficher est impossible dans certaines zones). Parmi les cartes couramment utilisées, la version “française” a fait le choix d’afficher les pictogrammes pour les parkings spécifiques PMR. On peut donc le voir quand les données sont rechargées et les cartes rafraîchies. Mais c’est un tout autre et vaste sujet, que l’on peut lire et aborder sur le forum par exemple.

en image :

Un parking tout entier est : amenity=parking https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dparking Sur cet objet, on indiquer de manière générale la possibilité de se garer pour tous et pour les places réservées : amenity=parking + capacity:disabled=yes/no/number + capacity:women=yes/no/number + capacity:parent=yes/no/number + capacity=number

Des places de parking détaillées sont : amenity=parking_space https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space

Si elles sont réservées aux personnes handicapées ou à mobilité réduite, on peut les cartographier (une par une ou en groupe de places) : amenity=parking_space + wheelchair=yes (voire d’autres options only/designated) + capacity:disabled=1 ou autre nombre

@Warin61

Your reading is rather selective. Alright about “surrounded by earth”: I can read and understand that and what it implies.

But it seems that you forget much too easily ALL the context and other words, don’t you?

In general, if […] long and […] earth it is almost certainly a tunnel; and if […] short and […] pillars / beams then that is almost certainly a bridge.

I agree with the current definition and others before: the “length” (length/width ratio) of the lower way is a interesting piece of information and it is natural to take it into account somehow.

@dygituljunky

Surely a very similar situation happens in several places. Some other interesting cases:

• Chennai: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/535357159#map=16/13.0023/80.1642
• Miami - Fort Lauderdale: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40753826#map=14/26.0680/-80.1424
• Paris - Charles de Gaulle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/49.0203/2.5332

I think tagging the way below (tunnel or covered) as distinct advantages:

• it feels like a tunnel when going through;
• the mapping is explicit about the length of the section which is in a tunnel or covered.

@Warin61

It is a bridge. Nothing in the definition of a bridge specifies its maximum width to length ratio.

Nothing currently in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge but https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tunnel reads:

For some grade separated crossings it may however be debatable if the lower way is in the tunnel or if the upper way is on a bridge=*. In general, if the lower way is long [note: informal for (much) longer than wide?] and surround by earth it is almost certainly a tunnel; and if the lower way is short [note: informal for less long than wide?] and the upper way is supported on concrete, brick on metal pillars / beams then that is almost certainly a bridge. There are however situations where it is a matter of personal judgement, but it is preferred to either tag the lower way as tunnel or the upper way as a bridge but not both.

And if you like “old” archives: - https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5934/bridge-vs-tunnel - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Bridge_vs_Tunnels

@apm-wa You have a typo between Mapillary and Maperitive in this post.

Please find my attemps with Overview of OpenStreetMap Contributors aka Who’s around me?.

Maybe you can remove the “Nonrecurring (<10 Changesets)” and try to contact some of the most active users through OSM messaging.

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc?layers=B0TFFFFFT&zoom=13&lat=28.64304&lon=77.22342

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc?layers=B0FTFFFFT&zoom=13&lat=28.64304&lon=77.22342

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc?layers=B0FFFFFTT&zoom=13&lat=28.64304&lon=77.22342

Beau travail ! Il y a matière à présenter la méthode et les résultats sur d’autres pages : le forum, le wiki, le site de l’association française… Je suis sûr que d’autres pourraient s’y intéresser.

Félicitations ! C’est un boulot effectué seul ou avec un groupe ? Avec une page de coordination ?

Magnifique citation et toujours aussi actuelle :)

Sois la bienvenue. Je te souhaite de belles aventures avec OpenStreetMap, dans ton métier et dans tes relations.

The route appeared in the Bicycle Tags Map in minutes. A quick test of Graphhopper, however, showed it did not take a route

It depends how often the data is pulled from OpenStreetMap database and processed in the routing engine. Typically updates for maps rendering is faster (sometimes seconds/minutes for very active projects) and updates for routing engine is slower (hours/days if active, weeks otherwise).

So try again in a few days, Graphhopper, Mapzen bike, Brouter, …

You have an answer now on the France user forum.

So we are several to choose to locate the addresses :

• at the entrance of a building when this entrance is close to the road (generally in town centers) ;
• at a point between private and public domains

[…]

For further messages dealing with french contributors (even in english language), you should use http://forum.openstreetmap.fr/

La question (un peu plus détaillée) peut être posée sur http://forum.openstreetmap.fr

Sinon le wiki déjà mentionné ou plus condensé http://learnosm.org

Hi, You can see some users, who seems to be active: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc?zoom=15&lat=41.7475&lon=-74.0794&layers=B0TFFFFFT

Some of your comments are interesting, your outright bias against humanitarian mapping aside. You “do not want to give [too much] of [your] votes to humanitarian mappers” is almost funny after reading your entire piece.

Kudos for most of your analysis, I agree or at least respect your views most of the time. Some bits I do not understand or disagree:

• nominees (eg. Yohan Boniface and Martijn van Exel) can be selected because of improvements or new stuff inside existing tools, not only brand new tools. You are free to judge they provide lesser innovations than other nominees this year.
• Ramani Huria: my understanding is they are more a local group supported by local universities (“community-based mapping project in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, training university students and local community members”) than a “group of HOT mappers”. Your mileage may vary, but as you admit you don’t know them, it is a bit far-fetched.
• I skip your rejections of Nick Allen, Harry Wood or Kate Chapman (slightly heavy-handed in my humble opinion).
• [You] “would like to give some negative votes to some candidates but [you] cannot”: I think you miss the point of these awards. Think more positive.

Finally: “Why do the awards not have a system with rounds? During the first round, all mappers (people with OSM account) could suggest candidates and the descriptive texts”. Either I miss something obvious you are unhappy with… but this is exactly how the whole affair happened. Candidates were freely submitted by anyone with with an OSM account and you could even vote for a first round. As stated in the announcement of OSM Awards you quoted: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076533.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-August/003904.html

Bonjour Saliou le contributeur “fou” du Bénin !

Tu es face à un problème bien gênant quand une imagerie est plus récente mais moins détaillée. Je crois que Sanderd17 et Vincent de Phily ont donné de très bonnes réponses qui te permettent d’utiliser la nouvelle imagerie en zoomant assez pour digitaliser avec JOSM comme à ton habitude. Même si la qualité est moindre, elle permet un très bon niveau de détail de cartographie pour les bâtiments.

Leurs méthodes empêchent l’apparition de l’ancienne imagerie. J’ai une préférence pour la simplicité de la seconde solution mais les deux fonctionnent. Merci à eux !

J’ai testé sur ta zone pour un seul bâtiment que j’ai rajouté car il a été construit entre les deux imageries. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/10.484961/1.012587

Enfin n’hésite pas à venir sur les listes de diffusions par courriel où je pense que les contributeurs seraient plus nombreux à lire tes questions et commentaires. Par exemple la communauté francophone HOT : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot-francophone Ou par forum de l’association française : http://forum.openstreetmap.fr/index.php

A bientôt !