[Talk-it] osm-icons.org - Richiesto feedback della comunità italiana

Volker Schmidt voschix a gmail.com
Ven 7 Feb 2014 11:44:53 UTC


Leonardo,

 per favore non fermarti con i commenti, anche se sono tanti. Se
> preferisci, fai un commento generale sulla qualità, indicando i casi
> eclatanti di icone che non sono chiare.
>

Il commento generale l'ho già fatto.

>
> Il feedback iniziale della comunità italiana è stato scelto solo perché
> Markuss sta ancora ottimizzando la procedura di review e si voleva iniziare
> semplicemente da una wiki. Sarebbe controproducente mostrare questo lavoro
> se la struttura necessaria per commentarla fosse troppo "traballante".
>

Anche se non ho capito perché si procede con questo prima in Italia, ...

Prima cosa che propongo, è di riorganizzare la lista in tal modo che icone
della stessa categoria siano raggruppati  (mi sono trovato di commentare su
un pittogramma, e poi ho trovato lo stesso pittogramma utilizzato per un
altro tipo di POI della stessa categoria più avanti. Mi sembra di capire
che la numerazione dei pittogrammi è sistematica e gerarchica. Allora,
prima di tutto mettete la lista in rete in ordine di questi numeri.

>
> È naturale che il lavoro sarà esposto al commento internazionale,
> altrimenti come potrebbe essere anche solo preso in  considerazione per il
> sito osm.org?
>

Meno male, ma quest'affermazione sul sito sembravo molto strano.

>
> Aspettiamo i tuoi commenti!
>

Ecco i primi 20%:

=====================================

19001: If 23001 is used for an military airfield the symbol 19001 should
only be used for civil airport (see 11001)

The symbol for an historic aircraft needs to be different, maybe a biplane
symbol could do the trick


 23002: impossible to understand


 25002: difficult to recognise


 34001: put a ship in the bathtub, otherwise impossible to recognise


 25003: impossible to understand


 16003: change the form of the hive


 27003: why not use the "railway crossing" European road sign (see 27007)


 35000: looks like a camp site for homosexuals :-)


 23003: impossible to understand


 32003: replace the man by a bus (as in 32001)


 16005: misleading, use 34003 instead


 29007: misleading - I only see wine bottles in the pictogram


 21002: looks like an emergency exit


 27005: difficult to recognise


 29010: looks like the sign of a calligrapher. This is not a pictogram. Put
some clothes on it, but not a letter


 21004: repair the binoculars (connect the two parts)


 29025: difficult to recognise


 26001: impossible to understand. Needs to have the electricity symbol added


 22003: looks like an eye. Why not use a light-tower symbol?


 22006: the tag man_made=campanile documented in the wiki but is used only
130 times. It looks that the tag is wrong as it refers to the Swedish
Klockstapel which is completely different from a "campanile". The normal
tagging for a campanile is man_made=tower + tower:type= bell_tower should
be covered by the same pictogram. (it's "official" and used more then 5000
times). The pictogram is misleading, as a campanile is much higher than the
bell-frame shown in the pictogram (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_tower;
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campanile)

(I will raise this point in the Tagging mailing list)


 13004: impossible to understand. Why not use the "customs" road sign (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BSicon_GRENZE_legende.svg)


 24003: misleading; I see a mountain, but not a glacier here


 22008: misleading; this is a cooling tower, not a chimney


 13006: impossible to understand


 35001: misleading; looks like a camp site with a bar (strange antenna)


 19005: misleading; looks like a historic British phone box. Unrecognisable
as a historic building


 26004: missing electricity symbol. Unrecognisable without that.


 19006: use a side view instead (
http://4vector.com/free-vector/cannon-clip-art-110239)


 19008: misleading; historic=church is a former church, no longer in use.
The pictogram does not imply this.


 19010: historic=farm is a former farm, no longer in use. The pictogram
does not imply this. Anyway, even for a working farm, it is not very clear


 19020: misleading;looks like a city wall tower, not like a fort


 13007: misleading; looks like a zebra crossing (seen from the pedestrian
point of view)


 13008: difficult to understand without something where the chani is fixed
to


 13010: misleading; looks like a road bump


 26005: this is a cooling tower, not a power generator (which could be also
a wind power generator


 26008: why does this one not have a cooling tower?


 Generally for power generators: I would add the output type of power, i.e.
in most cases electricity


 26021: why not use the cooling tower symbol as for the biogas generator


 22009: clear-cut shut not be mapped anyway, as it does not last. The
pictogram does not show a clear-cut, but suggests dead trees


 25007: misleading. For me this is a money lender or a lawyer


 18007: misleading. There should *not* be a separate symbol for mini- (i.e.
traversable) and "normal" (i.e. non traversable) roundabouts.


 27023: difficult to understand


 24007: in principle useful, but corresponds to an abandoned tag proposal (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trees) even though
it's in use

==================================================

Volker
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/attachments/20140207/4c27a2f9/attachment.html>


Maggiori informazioni sulla lista Talk-it