Ciao, felice di vedere un nuovo mappatore nell'area di Chieti/Pescara. Ho dovuto annullare alcune modifiche che hai fatto, ma soprattutto è necessario prestare attenzione ai nomi delle strade che inserisci negli indirizzi. Devono corrispondere al nome di una strada nel vicinato immediato. In questo caso, hai inserito alcune con addr:street=Lenzetta osm.org/node/13146083182 ma non c'è nessuna strada con quel nome nella zona. Frontalmente è chiamato Fosso dei Lupi, che hai sostituito con Via San Pietro. C'è un'altra strada con Fosso dei Lupi e ricordo di aver visto quel segnale all'angolo più vicino a Filetto, ma non ho trovato segnali per quella che era Via San Pietro.

Comunque, non indichi la fonte se non riferendoti all'immagine aerea di Bing. Spero che tu non abbia utilizzato il sito web ANNCSU poiché la loro licenza CC-BY 4.0 è incompatibile con l'ODBL di OSM. Non possiamo utilizzare le loro informazioni né quelle di Poste Italiane o Google, per citare alcuni esempi.

Hi

Could you please check this version 1 way which has no tags and correct or remove.

osm.org/way/1423811576#map=19/42.449322/13.881823

thanks

Hi,

Bad news: ANNCSU has an incompatible license with OSM called CC-BY 4.0, so you will have to revert the name changes you applied using this resource as base. Same goes for the addresses, to note that the positioning of the addresses is off such as is very visible in Bolignano and Mutignano.

Sorry, but the rule 'ground truth' and 'on the ground' continues to apply for OSM, meaning that if a wall sign in Pescara which says the street is named Via Giuseppe Maltese 6, that's the one we enter as name in OSM and there are more I found u used ANNCSU to base street name changes on. All needs reverting.

Cheers.

Quote "L’ANNCSU ha licenza CC-BY 4.0, non compatibile per l’import su OSM a meno che non ci sia un waiver e per quanto ne so io non mi risulta che ci sia nessun waiver. Motivo in più per fare revert di eventuali dati su OSM importati da ANNCSU (tantopiù se sovrascrivendo i nomi reali rilevati sul campo)."

It also was discussed multiple times on the telegram group such as here https://t.me/c/1124175268/114638

Hi and welcome to OSM,

You say in your changeset that your source is Bing aerial imagery and nothing else, yet you map buildings that are only visible in Google - WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN. Were there other sources such as on-the-ground surveying?
The shape is poor of the Torre Zembra. It looks perfectly square for which there is an ID Editor function in the right click menu. I've square the building but you still need to clarify the source of these building additions.

Also you say your edit is in/around Villamagna, but you too changed the Corso Mazzine in Vasto from Secondary to Tertiary. By what measure is that change correct? Why this in the same edit?

Please let me know.

Hi,

Not seen the discussion, time to move it to the community category forums, but my general observation is that hardly ever the 'length/width' of a drawn object is *exactly* as what is signed at bridges and tunnels and in many cases significantly off. So I'm a length/width tagger when I see (take picture of sign for documentation) and will add as supplemental source:length=*. In JOSM have a measuring tool so can get close, but not exact.

cheers

Hi CCCGGG,

It's overdue to start using JOSM as there are several forest outline parts that should be outer, not inner. JOSM would warn before saving. Also at 1807 members way overdue to split this MP relation. The OSM recommended maximum members for any MP relation is 300. If you need help doing that, in JOSM that's substantially a piece of cake.

Happe mapping.

SekeRob

Hi Stefano,

In 2021 you mapped several areas seaward from the coast near Silvi Marina which according to the history of e.g. this node. osm.org/changeset/170401369#map=18/42.540044/14.136824 were mapped by you with the rather meaningless 'aggiornamento'. You say your source was Bing+gpx. The problem is, there's nothing in Esri, Esri Clarity, Bing to confirm these coastal outcrops are real, no groyne, no breakwater (frangiflutti), no revetments. This suggests your mapping per GPX data file drawing was faulty. Can you confirm as then these outcrops from the coast need removal.

Thanks for your prompt response.
SekeRob

Hi,

You added a footway osm.org/way/1418937946 which was made part of the BI-6 route but you did not specify bicycle=yes or bicycle=dismount. For the tunnel, does that have to be =yes or dismount? What is the maxheight/width for that tunnel? Is it save to cycle through or is walking (dismount) recommended)?

For now I've added bicycle=yes to the new footway piece north of the road as this got flagged by Quality Control.

Let me know.
Buongiorno.

Provisionally mapped based on circled cycle trace and photos. Could soon be better positioned as the area has high visit grade of Strava riders.

Hi,

This CS appears with flagged items in OSM Inspector of broken boundaries, likely present before but coming to the fore because of the type change. The gaps are small and guessable, which would not be right on my. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.54333&lat=41.87851&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.50&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

cheers

6, BI-6, and in my region it's signed as Ciclovia Adriatica 6. If you click on the relation link in your change set you'll see what I mean. Your 2 meter edit shows up for every along the adriatic coast, from Venezia to Brindisi, which it would not have if the relation was split up in segment and then combined in a super route. This single route relation is now in version 487 with 1993 parts. The SS16 is much worse, 4355 parts and version 1892. Every meter added/subtracted adds a new version long as its a single route relation rather than split in subs per region or province. The Appennino Bike Tour I mapped over a year ago is at v30, the first 29 were for building all the stages, i.e. rarely highlighted as the members are a constant 44.

Hi,

this is another candidate same as the SS16 that I think we better had split in sections per region, in fact strongly think of *per province*, thus e.g. 3 sections for the Abruzzi and combine these in a super route.. It's too xxx that I'm mapping in Vasto and see this CS show up there in my JOSM CS history when the change was made near Ancona. Yesterday got flagged, also in Vasto for something that got broken in the SS16 near Padova, nearly 700km away from me. There's dozens of breaks in that route but wont fix until there is consensus to go ahead.
Changing 'tappa' does noot effect the super route.... those are fair constants needs little or never any maintenance.
Any thoughts?

cheers

'Unfortunately', this edit set did not cause a huge BBox so it would pop into many editors CS history view.

For the attentive reader. There's many gaps in SS16 route relation now almost 45000 members. My thinking is to split the relation per region, better stiil per province and combine these in a superroute same as the Appennino Bike Tour is split in 45 stages, so an edit to a stage does not need to load the whole to find the gaps, nor breaks the whole when something goes wrong.

I'd be happy to start along the Abruzzo coast which would constitute about 3 sub-routes for Teramo, Pescara and Chieti (don't think any dir touches on L'Aquila..

Just a thought....(not holding me breath).

Hi Mannivu,

Please see this area which shows since an edit 9 days ago a gap in a farmland MP relation near the river, as flagged by OSM Inspector.

osm.org/relation/179612#map=16/45.71579/9.65421

The other mapper and me don't repair things which are highlighted in OSMI that have a fixme on it we have no answer to. Don't quite understand why this CS gets shown as link to that edit when the Bbox of this one is way outside. At any rate, that flagged 'famrland' shows white in Carto standard in 2 larger zones.

SekeRob

Hi Nicola and welcome to OSM.

Note the warnings in your edit set "warnings:impossible_oneway:highway" & "warnings:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags". You've created impossible routing for vehicles with a smalll driveway at the end... you can get in, but not out.

Also please explain the deletion of this way.
osm.org/way/210296660
It exists, however it may appear to you, people use it as a shortcut.

Anyway, I've restored to path/access way to houses and removed the oneway tag.

Let me know
cheers

Ciao Giroingiro

Non so cosa significhi 'f' come commento del set di modifiche, ma è del tutto inadeguato. Vedi il wiki osm.wiki/IT:Good_changeset_comments per le raccomandazioni.
Il tuo sets di modifiche è stato evidenziato perché diversi confini delle relazioni non sono chiusi, come San Mango d'Aquino e Nocera Terinese, che mostrano le loro interruzioni dove questi due si connettono. Per favore, correggi oppure facci sapere da dove provengono i tuoi dati così che altri possano correggerli per te.

Buona mappatura!

Hi,

Don't know why this edit set is listed as the one where you created 6 MP relations of fairway+green at Miglianico golf club, but I've reverted it and promise to do it again. Says nowhere in the manual and doing it on 6 of 18 is really (fill in the french). If you don't agree, take it up with the DWG.
If you want to play, there are parallel mapping systems like umap where you can put in anything you like and make your own map.

cheers

Buongiorno gianni55,

Ogni volta che mappi un sentiero e attraversa un ruscello, un fossato, uno scarico, devi assicurarti di contrassegnare il nodo che connette il sentiero e il corso d'acqua con ford=yes oppure ford=intermittent a seconda che il ruscello sia contrassegnato con intermittente o meno. Ti preghiamo di leggere il wiki osm.wiki/IT:Key:ford su come fare. Non menziona ford=intermittent, ma è importante comunque poiché alcuni guadi non sono semplicemente attraversabili quando piove molto.

Grazie per aver letto.

PS. Alcuni di questi sentieri per e-bike sono ufficiali? Posso andarci e verificare se questi percorsi sono reali e, quando uso strade agricole esistenti o sentieri escursionistici, ottenere la corretta etichettatura per quelle sezion p.e. highway=track con grade1-grade5 e typo di smoothness?

Hi,

Your priorities are not mine... we map what we like, when we like it and while the prime function is of OSM is assist users routing from A to B, one would expect that after 20 years all ways that are important for routing have been mapped.
These forests were last touched 2 weeks ago and longer before so it does not seem like creating any mapping conflicts of 2 mapping simultaneously in the same area. OSM is at that very capable to handle mapping conflicts, if while mapping by one and uploading create such an issue of another mapper changing the same object just before the is the resolution process which in JOSM is very robust. Opposed to iD editor which often breaks relations in the hand of many a mapper, JOSM has a full walk thru process. At any rate these forests are now set for maintenance over the near future and beyond, in fact came across one that had not been touched in 10 years. So happened to be exactly 1900 nodes, so left it alone.

Happy mapping.

Best practise is to keep outlines below 1900 nodes so the next mapper does not quickly walk into the 2000 nodes wall if something changes to such a large area object. Yours of 1900 and greater are being highlighted as a future maintenance problem. Yes you can map cutlines as areas, but why would you when the man_made=cutlines is available for anything cutting through wood and scrub like ski pistes, lifts and powerlines. Apply best practises and no one will disturb you.

Happy mapping..