And I have detected another problem. There are two buildings that sit half on one property and half on another. These two buildings should not have an address associated with either property. However, someone will eventually come along claiming that I deleted the address, and so on… Those guys simply don’t know this place.
The problem is you. I`m sure that the owner of those buildings says that those buildings are perfectly legal.
Once for all: for OSM mappers what matters is what you see on the field.
If they existe they must be mapped
If people lives there they surely have a postal address
The world is as is, not as you think it should be.
@topolusitania The local city council and the DGT (along with a topographer) came in 2014 and stated that those buildings are 100% illegal. I have the city council’s report.
@topolusitania What kind of person are you? Can’t you see those buildings are illegal? Please stop this campaign! Go to the official Cadastro Predial website (Ortos 2018 maps) and check for yourself.
I can send every single one of these reports to the board/data working group of Open Street Map, the report form the topographer and the points and marcos (and coordinates from the DGT report we asked)
People do not live there… Again, you do not know anything about this place. This is insane. Come here please to see with your own eyes and please stop saying things that are not true.
And, again, “what you see on the field“ are two buildings that sit half on one property and half on another. Those two properties have different names, so (concerning those two buildings) I have kept the address information that is common to both of them (the postal code and the town/location name). That makes sense, doesn’t it?
Postal address of that land??? You know what small lands in Portugal are? Most of them do not have any post address. That is the case there (that part).
The last drop
Request to ban user PL 2188677
User PL 2188677 made an edit that completely altered one of mine, radically changing the outline of a farm.
Furthermore, he disguised the edit under a false title in an attempt to go unnoticed, knowing exactly what he was doing.
Please review the history of Way 1532088527— which I created to depict a farm (Herdade da Matinha, eastern section)— and observe how the user transformed it, through shifting and adding new points, into something entirely different (Herdade da Matinha, western section).
This behavior cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.
Filohipo
For further information see "war" on notes n.º 5360035, n.º 5359394 and n.º 5359396
Oh my Gosh…
Your map boundaries were 100% incorrect!
There is no eastern section of that land. I know the owner and am familiar with the whole property and official documentation *. I know everything about this land. We are the owners of the other land (western)!
There is only one section of that land, which is why @topolusitania and I agreed on and drew its boundaries.
I then added the name and address to that specific part.
During the past few days, I have provided a written justification for every single edit I made. I have also sent you multiple private messages regarding this issue.
*Again, I can send everything to the OSM board/Data Working Group. It takes me 2 minutes to do so if they ask me…
In addition, each building is associated with an address, the correct one.
So I do not get your point
Prove what you are saying. Prove it. Prove that name and area
I can prove everything I say with more than a hundred pages of documents. That is the difference.
What you are saying is wrong. It is as simple as that—that is why you cannot prove it. So please stop this. I urge you to…
“Your map boundaries were 100% incorrect!”
So they disappeared from place… Totally against OSM rules
So they were moved for a new location without notification the author … Totally against OSM rules
So they represent now a new farm - “Your Family Farm” the one and only that deserves to be mentioned
My two comments:
Matthew 5:3
Luke 23:34
“There is only one section of that land, which is why @topolusitania and I agreed on and drew its boundaries.”
Liar, is the correct word to describe the above sentence. I do not call you a liar in respect of this forum rules.
I corrected boundaries that were attached to rivers, roads and other areas that you have draw against OSM pratices Did nt knew how these boundaries were stolen from other user.
See:
Linha: Herdade da Matinha (1532088527)
Versão #3
Correcção limites da Herdade da Matinha (lado ocidental) Separada de elementos estranhos Rio- estradas manchas vegetais
As you heve proved to me that you are either a compulsive liar or a insane user, for me all matters stops here and now
Here we go again
It is not a lie. I thought you had agreed with me concerning the boundaries of the land (specifically, the fact that the neighbor’s land was not there). It was one of the issues we discussed a lot, didn’t we? Am I wrong?
That is why I said we agreed on those boundaries, and I agreed with you concerning the corrections you made afterward—that is the point. I thought everything was ok with you, by yesterday’s night. And that was what I told the OSM Data Working Group. Everything is ok with user @topolusitania, he did not delete again my boundaries. So that is what I call “agreeing on something”.
@topolusitania @Filohipo I did not steal any boundaries. @Filohipo you mapped the limits of a place called “Herdade X“. I saw that that and corrected it… that Herdade X is not there, it is a little bit to the west. So I remapped it to the correct place. What you did was 100% incorrect. And, yes, it his my family farm. That is why I know its name! And that is why I know that my neighbor’s farm does not have any name. He does not live there… He confirms that his farm does not have any name. Please come here to speak with him, if you want, and check for yourself.
You should not justify your sins and wrongdoings with biblical citations. That does not make any sense. That would only be the case if what you were doing was right—but it is not.
@Filohipo I will give you a challenge: try sending a letter to that address you are indicating. Do you know who the letter is delivered to? To me! Not to the neighbor! Ask at the post office. That address is ours, it doesn’t belong to the neighbor.
@topolusitania if you think the word “agreed on“ was not precise, I am sorry for that. In Portuguese I would have said “concordámos de certa maneira que os limites eram aqueles, já que que ele complementou as fronteiras que desenhei e não pôs em causa o que desenhei“. I thought you had agreed with me, but, if that is not the case, I repeat: I am sorry. I do not want any enemies, I just want a correct map and not a wrong one.
@Filohipo “without notification the author”? I have notified you and @topolusitania more than 20 times, through private messages and editions… saying that the address was wrong. Yet, you systematically do the exact opposite of what I tell you
@topolusitania “rivers, roads and other areas that you have draw against OSM pratices“Yes, that is why I thank you for your corrections here and there. Because the property is so big, some points came out of place, so I thank you for those corrections. It was a good joint effort. That is why I said we came to an agreement. But I am sorry if do not like the expression “agreement“.I apologize if you feel that is not the right word. If you do not like me, I see and I respect that.
The point is: the map now is correct. And it was wrong before the joint corrections we made.
A map must be correct and accurate. Please don’t call people names just because they corrected the many mistakes that the two of you were making. There were dozens of mistakes. But thankfully, everything is fine, as of now. 95% of the map is correct, I would say. But I am not going to correct any more of the other 5% of the mistakes you made, because some of them are minor details and because I don’t want any more conflict.
The user attacked again tonight. He reopened the issue about the address, basing it on a source that doesn’t say anything of the sort (I took the care to go and open the source and can send it to anyone who wants it, so you can see that it’s wrong). And 4 days ago, the issue of ‘natural spaces’ (discussed above) was already closed. The user reopened it when it had already been explained above that those spaces are not for building. They are ‘natural spaces’. I didn’t even understand the issue at first. At first, I even did what he wanted, but then I realized that what he asked for was the very same topic we had already resolved 4 days ago: ‘farmyard’ = ‘edification area’, (and that is not the case). Quoting to remind you: “Natural Space Misclassification: He repeatedly labeled an area as an “edification area,” despite the city council geographer officially classifying it as a natural space (PDM oficial document 2024).“ There is no farmyard, there are buildings and the space around them is a natural space, protected. No more buildings can be built there. So this is not correct, again.
@Filohipo check this Tag:landuse=farmyard - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Parte da folha nº 352 da série M888 publicada na década de 70 do século passado Não publico a ultima edição para não infringir as regras.
Idem, em ampliação. Verifiquem o desenho dos prédios urbanos e a ausência do topónimo “Mompalreu”
Reparem que as estradas que constam na carta como públicas ou com servidões, são agora tratadas como privadas no OSM.
Don’t you see that the map shows exactly what I have been saying concerning the addresses? That map shows “Quinta da Matinha” on the left side. What you mapped on the eastern part is wrong. But I will speak in Portuguese, if you want:
@Filohipo lá está. isso prova o que eu disse. Os limites que desenhou não têm sentido. A indicação dessa Quinta da Matinha aparece nos terrenos do lado esquerdo e não do lado direito. O senhor tem assinalado esse nome do lado direito, criando falsas fronteiras.
Quanto a Mompalreu veja Digitarq Está aqui!
Depois, as cadernetas prediais são claras. Vou-lhe mostrar o que está nas cadernetas prediais:
E isto é só uma das referências. Outras referem Mompalreu/Montpalreu/Bompalreo etc. Mas a mais referido na documentação oficial que tenho é “Mompalreu“.
Quanto aos caminhos, tem de conhecer a Lei portuguesa! Os caminhos que aparecem nas cartas militares não são considerados públicos. Não é esse o propósito das cartas militares. Isso que diz não está correto e é propalar um facto errado. Veja aqui, os acórdãos dos tribunais sobre as cartas da série M888 e cartas militares em geral:
“Aliás, não resolve qualquer carta militar questões de natureza jurídica, esgota-se na função de mapa e, como tal, limita-se a fornecer indicações geográficas, fundamentalmente, para efeito de operações militares – é esse o sentido de um “caminho carreteiro”: permite a passagem de carros (v. a caracterização da “Legenda” da Carta Militar de Portugal)”
O que os tribunais têm dito é que só as autarquias e as juntas de Freguesia definem se os caminhos são públicos ou privados, e com base nas regras legais, daí as minhas fontes para os caminhos públicos, que estão desenhados, serem o mapa municipal e o “espaço-canal“ assinalado em PDM que é bastante claro. E as regras são claras.
Publicar caminhos privados como públicos é crime, como expliquei no início deste tópico. E por isso todos esses caminhos foram assinalados como privados, como mandam as regras.
Portanto isso que está a dizer, mais uma vez, é falso.
Foi por isso que eu coloquei como fontes de caminhos públicos o mapa municipal. Estude o assunto em detalhe e não diga coisas que não são corretas. Quanto às serventias, como sabe são estradas privadas. Não há nenhuma servidão no registo predial, isso é um erro, mas mesmo as servidões de passagem dos vários proprietários, que podem existir, são estradas privadas apenas para os proprietários. Não são públicas.
Nota final: Mais uma vez desenhou os limites da propriedade do lado errado. Veja os mapas oficiais e o registo predial. Aqueles dois edifícios estão metade no nosso terreno.
Nota final 2: Por observação de geógrafo municipal, são espaços naturais e não espaços de edificação, e não estão separados nem isolados d eoutros espaços de lado para serem considerados espaços de edificação/farmyard. O farmyard termina na parede de cada edifício. Outros espaços existem no concelho em quintas que são áreas de edificação dispersa ou áreas agrícolas, mas ali não. Aquilo são espaços protegidos onde a construção é agora proibida, não é uma área de edifícios. O espaço entre os edifícios é um espaço natural a preservar conforme classificado, devido às suas características morfológicas/geológicas/de vegetação. Não vou entrar mais em detalhe, mas se quiser venha aqui ver o porquê.
@topolusitania Farm names are not the names of the buildings. Saying that a farm has the name of a building is wrong. The farm encompasses the entire space (buildings + land), and that is where the name is assigned, with well-defined boundaries, as I did (see the Portuguese law and Registo Predial). Furthermore, assigning functionalities to each of the buildings as you did violates OpenStreetMap rules, unless you know what is actually there. You should have just named it ‘building’. Assigning functions to buildings as “residential bulding“ or “warehouse“ without knowing if they are correct… violates the rule, and that is what you did…