পাবনা জেলা ও চাটমোহরে একজন অভিজ্ঞ ও নির্ভরযোগ্য জমির আমিন বা Surveyor or Land Surveyorখুঁজছেন? -

'’Surveyor Engineer Abdus Salam’’ চাটমোহর ও পাবনা জেলা জুড়ে ২০১৮ সাল থেকে জিপিএস এবং ডিজিটাল পদ্ধতিতে নির্ভরযোগ্য ভূমি জরিপ সেবা দিচ্ছেন। দাগ নম্বর অনুযায়ী জমি শনাক্তকরণ, সীমানা নির্ধারণ, বাটোয়ারা পরিমাপ এবং খতিয়ান-দলিল যাচাইয়ের কাজ করে থাকেন।

পাবনা জেলা, চাটমোহর উপজেলা ও আশপাশের এলাকায় জমির আমিন বা নির্ভরযোগ্য Land Surveyor খুঁজলে জমির সঠিক পরিমাপ, দাগ, অবস্থান ও সীমানা যাচাইয়ের জন্য Surveyor Engineer Abdus Salam-এর জরিপ সেবা নিতে যোগাযোগ করুন।

How’s

Detailed 3D buildings on OSM, without drawing a single part

Most buildings in OSM never get past a flat grey extrusion, and the reason is tedium rather than difficulty. Simple 3D Buildings is an easy scheme to read, but a decent tower needs dozens of building:part polygons, each with its own min_height and height. Nobody wants to draw 44 near-identical facade piers by hand.

So don’t draw them. Here is the whole recipe in one picture, from the Vesta Tower complex in Slemani: a 12-floor office tower, a 14-floor residential tower and the shopping podium between them.

The seven steps

1. Street imagery

   Dashcam frames from my own Mapillary sequences. This is the part that makes the difference: the true colours, the facade pattern and the floor count all come from here. Developer renders are lit for drama and usually show a palette that changed before construction. I started from the architect’s render and got a dark bronze residential tower; the real thing is light grey with white balcony slabs.

2. Height estimate

   Floor count times floor height. Don’t use a flat 3 m: retail and lobbies run 4 to 6.5 m, offices 3.4 to 3.6 m, apartments 3 to 4 m. Vesta’s office is twelve floors of 3.45 m over a 4.4 m ground floor, so 52.8 m to the top of the canopy.

3. Footprints in iD

   One building=* outline per building. Trace where the building meets the ground, not the roof, because tall buildings lean in aerial imagery.

4. Download the area in JOSM

   A fresh .osm export of your own data. This matters, because everything generated later is computed from your real node coordinates and versioned against this download.

5. Hand it all to Claude

   The photos, the heights, and the .osm file. Out comes every building:part: for Vesta that was 44 facade piers, 12 balcony slabs, the podium, the canopy and the rooftop box, just over 60 parts in total.

6. Check before uploading

   Ask for a 3D preview page built from the proposed tags. This was the single most useful step. Every correction I made came from looking at that preview rather than from uploading and hoping.

7. Open the file in JOSM and click Upload

   File > Open, green arrow, done. Sixty parts in one changeset, no drawing.

Three tricks worth stealing

Windows out of geometry. S3DB has no window tag, and you cannot count on renderers drawing window rows from building:levels. So make the windows real geometry: a dark glass core set back 0.5 m from the wall line, with stone piers 1.5 m wide standing in front of it. The gaps read as the tall vertical windows the building actually has, in any renderer and from any angle.

Slab stacks for balconies. The residential tower is a grey core inset 1.6 m, wrapped in twelve thin white parts at the floor levels, each using the full tower footprint so they project past the core like the real slabs.

building:part=yes
min_height=40.9
height=41.3
building:material=concrete
building:colour=#f1eee8
roof:shape=flat
roof:colour=#f1eee8

Overhangs are allowed. The office canopy projects 2.2 m past the walls. I clipped it where it would have crossed into the neighbours’ footprints and kept the overhang on the two street sides, and it renders correctly.

Things that will bite you

Never let two parts share a plane

My top balcony slab ended at exactly the same height as the tower core’s roof, and the overlapping surfaces shimmered as I rotated the view in F4map.¹ Making that slab 0.7 m thick instead of 0.4 m fixed it.

Don’t use iD’s Merge (C) on several areas

It creates a multipolygon and joins conflicting values with semicolons, so you get things like height=129.5;139.5;127.5, which no renderer can read. Every part must stay its own way.

Read the validator, then paste it back to the AI

My first generated file put pier corners exactly on the building’s corner nodes and JOSM reported 58 warnings. I sent the screenshot to Claude, it offset the piers 5 cm inside the wall line, and nearly all of them went.

Some warnings are meant to be there

JOSM reports “ways with same position” for the twelve stacked slabs and for parts that share their building’s outline. That is the trick working.

Give F4map a few hours

It picks up data changes fast but rebuilds its 3D tiles slowly, so don’t assume something is broken. The public Streets GL demo is no use as a cross-check: its data is frozen at September 2023.

Where the human still matters

This is not “ask an AI and upload”. Two corrections were mine, and both came from knowing the place: the colours, as above, and the footprint. Claude assumed the residential tower filled its whole plot, while I had traced the real tower from aerial imagery, about 1,100 m² with a notch in it. My tracing was right, and it rebuilt everything on my polygon.

You are the one who has stood in front of the building. Keep that judgement and hand over the tedium.

See it live

Vesta Tower on F4map. The whole thing took an afternoon, and most of that was deciding what colour things really are. I would like to see more of Slemani mapped this way.

1. Z-fighting: two surfaces at exactly the same height, where the renderer cannot decide which is in front and flips between them as the camera moves. ↩

A few days before SotM 2026 I was speaking to a friend and fellow attendee about the OSM community. I confidently told them the community is never very toxic, as at that time I’d never encountered wide-spread toxicity in OSM, nor had I ever felt that being a part of a marginalised group impacted the way people interacted with me or my contributions.

I’m sad to say that I no longer feel that way. I’ve written this post to increase awareness about this topic and to put this issue to rest, not to call out individuals.

Context

On the 14th of September I raised a question on the community forum. There had been an oppose vote which didn’t include a reason or feedback on my Lgbtq=* Revision proposal, which I found concerning. I posed that including a comment in an oppose vote was vital to the proposal process as it enables proposers to rewrite their proposals to account for the concerns of voters. I began writing a proposal to change the guidelines to require oppose votes to include a comment soon after.

During the RFC (feedback/discussion) phase of this proposal I actively sought out issues in my proposal; loopholes, poor phrasing, issues unaccounted for, etc. When people pointed them out I thanked them and edited the proposal accordingly, because my only goal was to write a strong proposal that strengthened the proposal process for everyone.

On Toxicity

I quickly found that not everyone was participating in this discussion with the goal of collaboratively working on a solution that a wide majority could agree on. Instead of providing useful feedback some contributors opted to tell me I’m wasting my time, that I’m just throwing a tantrum over the Lgbtq=* Revision. One contributor sent me a private message indicating that they would vote oppose on my Lgbtq=* Revision proposal because I “insist so much”. Another comment stated that I should read the comments again “slowly”, and that I should stop and think before continuing to discuss my point of view, implying that I simply don’t understand the provided counter-arguments.

The goal of RFC is to provide constructive feedback which can be used to improve a proposal. It should never be used to collectively attack and insult a proposer with the goal of making them abandon their proposal. But on the forum this behaviour isn’t just present, it’s widely tolerated.

While these comments were hurtful and discouraging, I tried not to pay them too much mind. But that changed when last week’s issue of WeeklyOSM was published.

On WeeklyOSM

In issue 844 of WeeklyOSM a short paragraph was published about my proposal. At the time of publishing the paragraph stated the following:

Because there were three votes against the Lgbtq=* proposal without a reason being provided (see the discussion on the OSM Community forum about it), Spughetti, the author of the proposal, has written a proposal to introduce a strict requirement to provide a valid reason to vote against a proposal. The reactions on some posts show a split in the community. This is not a good sign for a proposal required to pass the 75% requirement in the voting phase.

There are a number of issues with this paragraph:

1. It leads by stating that my motivation for writing this proposal is simply that there were oppose votes without an included reason on my Lgbtq=* Revision proposal. This is untrue, the mentioned oppose votes revealed to me what I believe to be an issue with the voting guidelines, that issue is my motivation for writing my proposal, not the oppose votes on the Lgbtq=* Revision directly. Claiming that it is is misleading to readers.
2. The phrase “valid reason” appears in this paragraph but does not appear in the proposal. I’ve (wrongly) used this phrase in the discussion thread but have tried to steer clear of it because it implies subjectivity, which the proposal tries to avoid through objective criteria. Including it so prominently in this paragraph is misleading and not based on the contents of the proposal.
3. The paragraph directly links to a counter-argument that is directly related to the proposal, but an argument of mine that was linked had hardly anything to do with the proposal.
4. The paragraph ends by saying that split opinion is “not a good sign” for a proposal. This is unnecessarily leading to readers.

I don’t care which side of the discussion you’re on, anyone can see that this paragraph contains bias. And in the midst of all this bias I was even directly mentioned by name, possibly hurting my professional reputation in the process.

A simple sentence such as “Spughetti proposed a change to the voting guidelines that would require oppose votes to include a reason” would have sufficed. It contains verifiable, objective information that can be found in the proposal and doesn’t favour either side of the discussion.

The reaction of many in the community, including an editor and a co-founder of WeeklyOSM, was clear; WeeklyOSM has no obligation to be neutral. If that really is the case, and WeeklyOSM is to contain bias, we should at the very least know whose bias it is. As it stands anyone can submit a biased paragraph about a topic they feel strongly about in order to influence public opinion about said topic, and they can do so anonymously. At the time of writing it is unclear who wrote this paragraph.

After a private correspondence detailing my concerns to the WeeklyOSM team, they opted to only change the word “Because” to “After” in the opening sentence and remove the last sentence of the paragraph. The editor responding on behalf of WeeklyOSM had been active in the RFC thread on the opposing side of the discussion and discouraged me from continuing to work on my proposal in their response.

On Assuming Good Faith

It’s important to assume good faith in the OSM community. The vast majority of contributors share the goal of making the best world map, and we all work collaboratively to achieve that goal. This rarely has to be called into question.

This however does not mean that bad faith contributions never occur in our community. Making non-constructive comments to dissuade another contributor from discussing an idea, anonymously submitting a biased paragraph to WeeklyOSM, or going so far as to personally insult another contributor are not signs of contributions made in good faith. And it’s reasonable for a contributor to push back when they are the target of such behaviour.

When pushing back on said behaviour there has been outrage over the fact that someone dared to not assume good faith, as if discouraging bad faith is a more heinous offense than acting in bad faith. Some contributors acknowledged that there were bad actors but discouraged me from publicly acknowledging it on the basis that acknowledgment encourages the behaviour. That to me seems backwards, telling the targets of bad faith contributions to keep quiet does nothing but signal to bad actors that their behaviour is tolerated and won’t lead to any backlash. This fosters a culture of zero accountability.

In Closing

My main concern is not about bad faith contributions in our community, but rather the way we respond to them. When we see that a fellow community member is being treated unfairly we shouldn’t turn a blind eye for the sake of assuming good faith, because acting in good faith is just as, if not a more important part of etiquette. I believe community discussions would benefit a lot if we took acting in good faith as seriously as we do assuming good faith.

_{No generative artificial intelligence was used in the writing of this post.}

Bâtiment simple

Type de bâtiment

• building=detached (yes / …)

Tags standards en 3D

• building:colour=#8e5f57
• building:levels=2
• roof:shape=gabled
• roof:colour=#9e9fa5
• roof:levels=1

Tags optionnels

• building:min_level=1
• roof:orientation=across (across = perpendiculaire, along = parallèle)

Bâtiment complexe (relation)

Maptober is here! Starting today, the OpenStreetMap Foundation’s Local Chapters and Communities Working Group invites mappers everywhere to take part in the 31 Day OSM Challenge. Inspired by the #30DayMapChallenge that happens every November, this new challenge gives you a daily theme to improve OpenStreetMap, from adding trees or improving woods on Day 1 to benches, bridges, railways, healthcare, and more. Just complete the day’s task, tag your changesets with #31DayOSMChallenge and #Maptober hashtags, and share your edits on social media if you like.

There’s no pressure to map every day and you can complete the challenge at your own pace. There is no prize beyond knowing you’ve contributed to the world’s best open map. This is a great way to sharpen your skills, try new tools, and learn how to map different kinds of features. Just keep to OSM’s good practices rather than mapping only to tick a box.

Check out the full list of daily themes at the OSM Wiki and start mapping!

Four months ago I started working on Atwood, Kansas. There are other people working on it to, so I was mostly just putting in addresses from the county assessor’s office. Today I put in the last two streets’ worth.

– Read in English

IVIDES.org está comemorando seu 20º aniversário, contribuindo para a ampliação do conhecimento sobre o mapeamento coletivo

Apresentação

O Instituto Virtual para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – IVIDES.org](https://ivides.org) comemora seus 20 anos com uma importante notícia: a Editora IVIDES lançou dois e-books da obra Estudos de caso em mapeamentos colaborativo e participativo, volumes 2 (geral) e 3 (dossiê temático em redução de riscos e desastres, RRD), que reúnem contribuições sobre mapeamentos coletivos e em diversas áreas do conhecimento. As obras foram organizadas e editadas pela Dra. Raquel Dezidério Souto, autora de outros títulos nesta temática.

Os livros estão disponibilizados com acesso aberto no portal da editora, com fins a ampliar o seu alcance e promover maior conscientização sobre a utilização de metodologias participativas.

Todos os textos passaram por revisão duplo-cego e normalização, de modo a atender aos critérios de qualidade de uma publicação científica. Os e-books incluem links para o conteúdo e um índice remissivo, a fim de facilitar a leitura.

Editora IVIDES

A Editora IVIDES é uma casa publicadora registrada — CNPJ 978-65-985676-7-5 — na cidade do Rio de Janeiro (Brasil) e conta com um conselho editorial internacional, tendo publicado obras com temáticas relacionadas às linhas de atuação do IVIDES.org, instituto virtual de pesquisas que, desde 2006, colabora com entidades brasileiras e estrangeiras.

A política editorial pode ser acessada no portal da editora e os contatos podem ser realizados pelo e-mail ivides [at] ivides.org.

Estrutura dos e-books

Devido ao grande interesse de autores, o conjunto de textos originais foi dividido em dois volumes, com um volume dedicado especialmente à temática da redução de riscos e desastres.

O VOLUME 2 tem 15 capítulos, divididos em três partes:

I – Tópicos especiais em mapeamento com OpenStreetMap

II – Mapeamentos para a conservação

III – Mapeamentos com fins educacionais ou comunitários

Imagem da capa (c) 2026 OpenStreetMap; uMap; autores.

O VOLUME 3 (dossiê temático sobre RRD) tem 20 capítulos, divididos em três partes:

I – Avaliações de vulnerabilidade e risco

II – Educação para redução de riscos e desastres (ERRD)

III – Urbanismo e redução de riscos e desastres (RRD)

Imagem da capa (c) 2026 OpenStreetMap; uMap; autores.

Ao se aprofundarem nas contribuições apresentadas nos livros, a editora espera que os leitores conheçam as diferentes abordagens participativas, suas vantagens e limites de aplicação. Tendo em vista a escassez de títulos em português nestas temáticas e a sua relevância, espera-se ainda que os livros contribuam para a orientação de atividades profissionais e acadêmicas no Brasil e em outros países lusófonos.

– Leia em português

IVIDES.org is celebrating its 20^th anniversary contributing to the expansion of knowledge about collective mapping

Presentation

The Virtual Institute for Sustainable Development – IVIDES.org is celebrating its 20th anniversary with an important news: the Editora IVIDES has released two ebooks (in Portuguese) from the series Case Studies in Collaborative and Participatory Mapping—volume 2 (general) and volume 3 (a thematic dossier about disaster risk reduction, DRR)—which bring together contributions on collective mapping across various fields of knowledge.

The ebooks were organized and edited by Dr. Raquel Dezidério Souto, author of other books on this topic. The ebooks are available as open access on the publisher’s website, with the aim of broadening their reach and promoting greater awareness of the use of participatory methodologies.

All texts underwent double-blind peer review and standardization to meet the quality criteria for a scientific publication. The e-books include links to the content and a table of contents to facilitate the reader experience.

Editora IVIDES

The Editora IVIDES is a publishing house registered in Rio de Janeiro City (Brazil) —CNPJ 978-65-985676-7-5— and has an international editorial board. It has published works on topics related to the areas of focus of IVIDES.org, a virtual research institute that has been collaborating with Brazilian and foreign organizations since 2006.

The editorial policy can be accessed on the publisher’s website, and inquiries can be sent via email to ivides [at] ivides.org.

Ebooks’ structure

Due to the high level of interest from authors, the collection of original texts was divided into two volumes, with one volume dedicated specifically to the topic of risk and disaster reduction.

The volume 2 has 15 chapters divided into the following parts:

I – Special topics in mapping with OpenStreetMap

II – Mapping for conservation

III – Mapping for educational or community purposes

Cover images (c) 2026 OpenStreetMap; uMap; authors.

The volume 3 (thematic dossier on DRR) has 20 chapters divided into the following parts:

I – Vulnerability and risk assessments

II – Education for disaster risk reduction (EDRR)

III – Urban planning and disaster risk reduction (DRR)

Cover images (c) 2026 OpenStreetMap; uMap; authors.

As readers delve deeper into the contributions presented in these books, the publisher hopes they will become familiar with the various participatory approaches, as well as their advantages and limitations. Given the scarcity of books in Portuguese on these topics and their relevance, it is also hoped that these books will help guide professional and academic activities in Brazil and other Portuguese-speaking countries.

FOSSGIS-Konferenz 2027

Markieren Sie sich den Termin im Kalender: Die FOSSGIS-Konferenz findet im nächsten Jahr vom 9.-13.März 2027 in Heidelberg statt. Das Konferenzteam und viele Teilnehmende freuen sich schon jetzt auf spannende Vorträge, lebhaften Austausch und viele bekannte (und neue) Gesichter!

Die FOSSGIS-Konferenz ist im D-A-CH-Raum die führende Konferenz für Freie und Open Source Software für Geoinformationssysteme sowie für die Themen Open Data und OpenStreetMap und findet jedes Jahr im März an einem anderen Ort im deutschsprachigen Raum statt.
Die Konferenz bietet eine Plattform für Austausch, Weiterbildung, Forschungsfragen zu Themen rund um Open Source Tools und Open Data im Geodatenbereich. Die FOSSGIS-Konferenz 2027 wird vom gemeinnützigen FOSSGIS e.V, der OpenStreetMap Community in Kooperation mit dem Geographischen Institut, Abt. Geoinformatik der Universität Heidelberg und der HeiGIT gGmbH organisiert und findet im neuen audiMAX auf dem Campus der Universität Heidelberg statt.
Es handelt sich bei der FOSSGIS-Konferenz um eine Community-Konferenz, die vorwiegend ehrenamtlich organisiert und umgesetzt wird. Die Einnahmen über Konferenztickets, Workshopbuchungen und Sponsoring dienen der Finanzierung der Konferenz und kommen Open Source Projekten und der Communityarbeit zugute.

Format Mittwoch bis Freitag

• Vorträge, Lightning Talks, Demosessions sowie Vorträge im Akademic Track (mit Peer-Review des Fullpaper) mit Livestreaming und anschließender Veröffentlichung der Videos auf der Open-Access-Plattform für wissenschaftliche Videos der Technischen Informationsbibliothek (TIB AV-Portal).
• hybride Communitysessions in Form von Anwendertreffen, Expert:innen Fragestunden, Diskussionsrunden oder studentischen Beiträgen.
• Postersession
• Workshops finden von Mittwoch bis Freitag parallel zum Vortragsprogramm statt und können von den Teilnehmenden gegen eine zusätzliche Gebühr gebucht werden.
  Am Dienstag, dem Vortag der Konferenz, ist Gelegenheit für Workshops in einem längeren Format (180 Minuten).

Format am Samstag

• OpenStreetMap-Event im Barcampformat
• Community-Sprint als Codesprint

Möglichkeiten der Partizipation an der FOSSGIS-Konferenz

• Einfache Teilnahme - Anmeldung ab Januar 2027
• Beitragen mit Vortrag oder Workshop - Einreichung über Call for Participation
• Freiwillige Helfer:innen willkommen, Infos siehe Helfen
• Sponsoring mit der Option für einen Ausstellerstand im Foyer der Konferenz

Zeitplan und Infos

• Konferenzhomepage: https://fossgis-konferenz.de/2027/
• Call for Participation bis 01.11.2026
• Programmveröffentlichung: Ende Dezember
• Anmeldung zur Konferenz: ab Januar 2027

zum Weiter verbreiten:

• Konferenz-Poster zum weiterverteilen oder ausdrucken und aufhängen als PDF.
• Social Media:
  • Mastodon
  • LinkedIN
  • Instagram

Ankündigung und Call for Papers FOSSGIS 2027

Poster zur Ankündigung FOSSGIS 2027

VANDAAG BRIEVEN RONDGEDRAGEN