Ott van az, pár napja jártam arra, csak nem tudom, hogy pontosan micsoda, konkrétan minek az emlékműve.

Annyit láttam, hogy valaki körbe rakott néhány követ, ami akár egy rögtönzött szalonnasütő hely is lehet.

Szia!
OK, én is megnéztem a helyszínen, de nekem úgy tűnt, hogy ez nem több mint néhány körbe hányt kődarab.

Szia!
Mit lehet tudni erről a napkörről?
Gábor

Szia Tamás!

Igen, ebben van ráció, ezért is tettem rá az access=customers címkét, hogy ne kezdjen el ott mindenki mászkálni.

De akkor mi legyen helyette?
• access=private?
• leisure=garden (ez azért nem egészen OK a kert definíciója szerint)
• landuse=forest (ez is sántít, ráadásul nem tudom, hogy vannak-e magánerdők, ha már a magánparkokat szermlátomást nem szereti a wiki népe)
• vagy egyszerűen hagyjuk így pőrén, fizikai címke nélkül?

Gábor

Sorry, I didn't realise it may pose problems. Anyway, I only modified some tags, no more. Next time I will be more attentive.

Dear All,

at the enlargement of the Schengen Area with Romania and Bulgaria there was a brief discussion in the Hungarian community, we stated that most of the border crossings were already missing anyway, and no one had problems with it and no one had the intention to redraw them.

Obviously, I can't find all the changesets from the last several years, I just know that when I have seen them the first time, there were only few of them. So, you are right: it may be that they weren't there ever but I'd rather assume that, at least in the case of Hungary and Luxembourg, they were there, at least I have some memories (though I admint, I can't prove them). In the case of other countries, I don't know.

The changeset you cited is about three years old so I wouldn't state it 'recent'. ;-)

Of course, the may be barriers at border crossing point but then we can be more precies (bollards or whatever).

Moreover re-introducton of border control between Schengen countries is a temporary measure. To map temporary measures is not a best practice:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features
(The wiki gives a time span of some weeks but I think that is very short. I don't think we can assume to follow all the changes of EU countries' border crossing measures.)

Nevertheless, I don't mind if you draw all the border crossings around your countries. We can perhaps give it an access=yes tag and then it, hopefully, won't disturb routing engines but the possibility is there to make it stricter.

Another question is what to do with those roads crossing the border without any border crossing facility, building or whatever.

Let's assume a country re-introduces border control > we tag it accordingly > routing engines may turn traffic to far-away roads in forests and so on because on those roads there is absolutely no border control...

Dear All,
I have removed merely a small fraction of all the possible border crossings. Most of them were removed already years ago, so even if you revert my edit, it won't solve anything.

Police can stop you anytime anywhere, also at the borders.

In the last years EU member states are consantly playing of restoring and abandoning border control:
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en

However, most of the time you can cross the borders absolutely free, even at times of temporary reintroduction of border controls (as I have done several times in the last years on the borders of Austria). So even if there is theoretically a border control in force, in practice you do not notice it most of the time. Therefore, I do not think we should map things that function only very rarely like during Covid19 and similar events that are, fortunataly, pretty rare…

Moreover, I don't think we have capacity to follow all the potential reintroduction of border controls and switch the tags accordingly several times a year on thousands of kilometers of internal EU borders.

Anyway, if you think border control is of importance, just feel free to redraw them around your countries. In Hungary, this is not an issue nowadays, the community seems to be happy without these nodes.

You can find here a list to begin with:
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e9e9e193-3cb1-43da-99e0-ec29a91ec4d0_en
(You can legally use it like any EU document of data.)

Cheers

Gábor

Carissimo/-a Totera,

I don't think stages have much importance. They are merely a proposal of the route operator that you can make the way according to stages. And you can make it also in different sections.

Therefore, many routes are not split into stages or at least not in daily ones.

E.g.
• https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=11860709&type=relation
• https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=356129&type=relation
• https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=9204501&type=relation
• https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=13992003&type=relation
And so on.

There are pathes where they offer several options on their own website on how to do it: there may be a possibility to walk in 4, 5 or 6 days. This was the case in the Tuscan part of Via Lauretana (but their website is now defunct). How can you then draw these stages?

And if you choose to do the way in another way, overnighting in a village in the middle of a section, it may be even annoying to have sections that contradict to your own route.

So I don't think sections are a must. If you would like to have them, you can download the route and the split it according to your own needs / pace / speed.

And, finally, a suggestion: in my experience most people walk through Camerino so I'd rather suggest to name it as the main part of the way and the Southern one (accross Muccia) the alternative.

Saluti

Gábor

Dear Aceman444,
most of the border crossing points disappeared already several years ago.

This is in line with the whole Schengen Area: actually there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of roads crossing the borders in the EU and only a handful of them has (yet) a border_control tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/24oq

Kind regards

Gábor

Kedves blil!
Biztosan itt van a Robokalandpark?
A honlapjukon szerepel néhány cím, de ezek többnyire Békéscsabán a városban vannak:
https://robokaland.eu/
Gábor

Szia!
OK, kösz! Az adatok szemlátomást köszönik jól vannak. Mindössze a három katasztrófavédelmi kirendeltséget rajzoltam föl, egyetlen pontot vagy vonalat sem volt szándékomban megmozdítani.

Mindenesetre érdemes lenne utánanézni a helyzetnek a JOSM-ban: vajon véletlenül megnyomtam egy nyílbillentyűt vagy valami bogár van a programban?

Hát ez vidám. S akkor mit kell ilyenkor csinálni? Nézegessem végig egyesével az összes módosított pont előzményeit?!

Itt próbálnék utánanézni, de elég döglöttnek tűnik:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/159747853

Kedves mgpx!

Úgy tűnik, hogy az általad belinkelt határvonal 6 évvel ezelőtt módosult utoljára, s akkor sem én változtattam rajta.
Üdv

Gábor

Dear Zeev,

well, it was a long time ago so I do not remember how the gate looks like and whether you can bypass it e.g. by bicycle.

Bye

Gábor

Dear zstadler,

thank you for your message. Actually, I didn't mind if you removed the tag, however…

However other routing engines, e.g. Graphhopper treats tags in a completely different way: https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=32.845701%2C35.51034&point=32.849325%2C35.508516&profile=foot&layer=OpenStreetMap

Indeed, OSRM itself seems to treat them well:
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=32.846252%2C35.50998%3B32.849452%2C35.508542#map=18/32.847857/35.509266

So if we would change tag that would be actually a "tagging for the renderer" action that is strongly discouraged by the community:
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

So I would rather suggest to contact the developers of OSRM and discuss with them the issue.

Cheers,

Gábor

…and another question: is there any hierarchy between editing software? E.g. is an edit more valueable if it is done with e.g. iD than it would be by JOSM? Or vice versa?

Dear dieterdreist,

now there are two distinct features on both piazze: one of a pedestrian highway and on of a square with the appropriate distinction of tagging:
changeset/163791363

Cheers

Gábor

Dear dieterdreist,

yes, you are right. What I have done is that I merged the two Piazza Navonas and two Campos into one, since also in real life there is one of them (as far as I can remember from my last stay in Rome some weeks ago). ;-)

I thought that the fountains and the statue of Giordano Bruno are actually parts of the square so there might not be need of a multipolygon where the inner members are not parts of the whole (e.g. an isle in a lake is not part of the water).

However, I admit that I ignored that, though these objects are part of the square but, they are not part of the pavement… I might have done a mistake.

Nevertheless, I don't think in compromises the usability of the map in any aspect (except maybe if someone wants to measure the surface of the paved are on these piazze) so rating my edits as vandalism seems a bit exaggerated…

Thus, if you think it more appropriate, I can transform these places into multipolygons where the statue and the places are excluded from the pavement and then it will be more accurate and look nicer than it looks now.

What do you think of it?
Kind regards

Gábor

Dear / Carissimo / Lieber dieterdreist,

thank you for you message.
Just to understand each other:

The problem is that the area of the three fountains of Piazza Navona seem paved on OSM (together with the rest of the square)?

Thank you!

Gábor

Ciao Ivo,

non ho capito la tua domanda. Si' ho creato il cammino dei cappuccini che e' un route=hiking e anche un pilgrimage=yes:

• osm.wiki/Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking
• pilgrimage=*

Avrei dovuto fare qualcos'altro?

Gábor