Re: [Talk-us] Semi-import of TIGER 2011 in a small area
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:39:50AM -0600, Toby Murray wrote: Thanks for sharing the details. I have done some limited mapping based on TIGER 2010 and 2011 data. I wonder if this is available as a WMS layer somehwere. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Getting ready for the license change
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:44:30PM -0700, Martijn van Exel wrote: I do that too. There is of course a small chance of the decliner changing his or her mind, so I only delete data that is tainted by a decliner that I have personally been in touch with about the license change and my best judgement is that his / her decision is final. Speaking of, has anyone talked to balrog-kun yet? I know he was at one point insanely prolific and I often stumble across his data, he's currently a decliner. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Problem with an Armchair user
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:46:24PM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: And if I messed with Texas, sorry. I'll go screw with Oklahoma instead :) I believe you got burned for doing that, too. Could you please tread lightly in territory where you have not yet physically put boots on the ground? Maybe give a heads up before doing mass imports (even if they are supervised) so the rest of us aren't constantly firefighting after the fact? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Problem with an Armchair user
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 15:42 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 1/17/2012 3:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:46:24PM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: And if I messed with Texas, sorry. I'll go screw with Oklahoma instead :) I believe you got burned for doing that, too. Could you please tread lightly in territory where you have not yet physically put boots on the ground? It was a joke. Oklahoma is one of my access=avoid areas. I don't think anybody else thought it was funny, either. I could be wrong. Maybe give a heads up before doing mass imports (even if they are supervised) so the rest of us aren't constantly firefighting after the fact? For the sake of the audience, I'd like to note that Paul's definition of 'import' is a bit wonky. Well, I'm not sure how a bulk edit based on an external, third-party source doesn't count as an import, whether or not it's automated. Speaking of, feel free to push the last few hundred miles of USBR 76 and Historic US 66 relations through; your route relations are pretty noncontroversial and generally beneficial by any account. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Minot, ND disaster remap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 It looks like some folks in the Minot area are using OSM and noting it's not reflecting it's post-flood state. Is anybody aware of current, post-flood WMS imagery for this area? http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1416573 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: APG v1.0.8 iIQEAREIAEQFAk8W+FU9HFBhdWwgSm9obnNvbiAoQWxsIG90aGVyIFNNVFAgdHJh ZmZpYy4pIDxiYWxvb0B1cnNhbXVuZGkub3JnPgAKCRDEeoSjuuGijO92AJ0YxHem lEJjSPDKaaMNxzSpVDYlZACeIwgYewlE1D1qSGcNxpCi7dBmQ0o= =U4G/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Shootout in Vegas
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:43 +1100, Nick Hocking wrote: If someone is driving past, could they clarify this for me please? Be sure to pin it on OpenStreetBugs, too. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Check my junctions - looking for someone to review my plates of spaghetti -- responding to feedback
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On 1/24/2012 9:20 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single white line does not legally prevent crossing. But even if it did, we don't map a double yellow as a median. *You* don't map a double yellow (I assume you mean a double double yellow) as a median. No, I mean a double yellow. As in do not pass. That doesn't legally prevent crossing either. It does if there are no intersections nearby. (Any other exceptions, such as passing an obstruction, would also apply to crossing a double white.) Florida's driver's manual says that crossing any double-white line is prohibited. You're confusing double white with single white. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone want to team up to work on Austin, Texas (was LA and other license changeover challenged areas)
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Well I'm making my way down I-35 from Dallas to Waco right now, processing data I collected over Christmas and license cleaning at the same time. I would be happy to keep going and do some license cleaning on down to Austin, especially on the interstates. The city itself is indeed a pretty big mess :( Looks like mostly one user who has explicitly declined. Looks like about 4% of Austin was balrog-kun; I'm in the process of tagging that odbl=clean right now per his previous request. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:41 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: All mappers make some errors, whether you are talking about the mappers who originally created the data found in TIGER, OSM mappers, or even Google Maps. I found a case in Google Maps the other day where, if you searched for a certain street address, it would point you to a location that was on the correct street, but a couple of miles from the correct location. Oh, Google's next to useless outside urban areas in the midwest. It's only able to identify one location I lived in Oklahoma as approximate where it's approximation and reality differ by nearly two miles, and misses similarly rural addresses by up to 10 miles. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Identifying bike lanes (Re: LA and other license changeover challenged areas.)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On 1/30/2012 8:38 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Many in Multnomah County only have diamonds, no arrows, no other markings, with a ◊ RIGHT LANE BIKE ONLY sign**every half mile or every block, whichever comes first, with BIKE ONLY markings and arrows only at the intersections. I think they grandfathered themselves in, newer lanes and other counties replace ◊ with (bicycle symbol); prior to the middle of last decade, bike lanes only had diamonds and occasionally said BIKE ONLY. Yes, if there's a sign then the lane doesn't need any special markings. I'm talking about a local case where, if I remember correctly, there are no signs and a pseudo-bike lane with a diamond and arrow only. If there's a sign, the lane still needs the corresponding symbol as used on the lane restriction sign (be it diamond or bicycle). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping tips
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 17:14 -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]and copy in the TIGER 2011 name from the TMS overlay (remembering to
un-abreviate as you go).
As a reminder: the JOSM URL for that is
http://{switch:a,b,c}.tile.openstreetmap.us/tiger2011_roads/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png
Some roads are (unfortunately) glued to landuse polygons. For these
you need to unglue first to make room for the road replacement. These
take a lot more time but, hopefully, there are not too many of these.
That's really bad practice IMO, but I find it practised here in Salt
Lake too. Quick way to unglue: Select the way, shift-select the glued
point(s), press g.
Ideally, these should be shifted to the border of the land use, rather
than another location within the right of way.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SOTM US in Portland, Ore - details to follow
Well, drat, I'm heading out of Portland, hopefully for good this time, sometime between April and July. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Hi all, The SOTM US bid committee has considered the bids entered to hold this event later this year. I'm excited to announce that we can all start looking forward to the second State Of The Map US in Portland, Oregon! The Portland team is still ironing out all the details, so there's not too much more to share right now, except that it's very likely going to be in October. More info will be shared here as well as on the wiki. Best, Martijn (on behalf of the SOTM US bid committee and the SOTM US chapter board) -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] name expansion bot (Re: Imports information on the wiki)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, TC Haddad tchad...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.orgwrote: but overall, the automation saved countless hours of manual name expansion for the minor cost of having to deal with a very small number of largely regionally-isolated edge cases. Can someone explain the original point of name expansion? Is it so that devices that give audio directions using text-to-speech can read fluently? Or was it really all about saving time? Because there are other use cases where expanded names are not desirable, particularly in cartography. When map or screen real estate is minimal, expanded names can be downright detrimental to utility. Sounds like a problem for the renderer to solve. It's possible for renderers to easily create abbreviations when full words are not desired, but impossible for automated translation and renderers to expand abbreviations accurately. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] name expansion bot (Re: Imports information on the wiki)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: If the directional prefixes are not generally used as part of the name, they should probably not be in the name tag, but instead as an address tag (I've used addr:direction e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/** browse/way/140789671 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/140789671). Is that even in live use on any significant level? I'm not finding any precedent of real consequence. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 51, Issue 19
Southwest Town Center Loop West comes to mind as a great example of just plain brain damaged street naming Wilsonville tends to have. On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Dion Dock dion_d...@comcast.net wrote: You're assuming the street signs make sense. Do you preserve signs with mistakes or omissions? In Wilsonville, OR, there are some signs for St Moritz Loop and St. Moritz Loop. Yes, with and without the period, and both expand to Saint. There are also plenty of signs that leave out the Southwest entirely, although it really is the correct designation for the street. There's even Southwest Villebois Drive South. -Dion From: Mike N nice...@att.net On 2/17/2012 3:02 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: if the name has been edited by a human, it should not be updated by a bot, or even another human unless they are willing to prove their edit. I've edited thousands of names based on photo surveys and official record research and wouldn't want that high-quality data corrupted. For myself, I don't know how to determine what the correct name would be ... if it doesn't match the street sign, I'd be inclined to change it to agree with the sign, unless there's a 'note' tag to other mappers. Similarly, an 'anti-abbreviation-bot' tag would prevent bots from undoing your research. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] street prefixes
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Alan Millar grunthos...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Southwest Town Center Loop West comes to mind as a great example of just plain brain damaged street naming Wilsonville tends to have. You know, I should find out if I can see Mt Hood when driving east on Southwest North Dakota Street :-) I don't recall being able to. Partly because it runs north/south on the only part I ever had any reason to be on. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] MapQuest Open Maps
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: Another update: they now color motorway_links with toll=yes green (and display toll booths at high zooms - not sure if this is new). The overlap where a toll motorway becomes a free motorway is a bit messy though. Doesn't look messy to me. More like precise. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] MapQuest Open Maps
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On 2/29/2012 12:17 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Another update: they now color motorway_links with toll=yes green (and display toll booths at high zooms - not sure if this is new). The overlap where a toll motorway becomes a free motorway is a bit messy though. Doesn't look messy to me. More like precise. I'm talking about the details of the rendering, and how the border of the toll=yes curves around on top of the toll=no, crossing the inner white line. Aah, OK, yeah, I see what you mean, that is a little wonky. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] MapQuest Open Maps
Still needs fixing: 'Banners' on county roads (e.g. CR 35 Alternate, CR 50 Old) C-* is a county road (in Ohio at least; it may be used for state highways in Colorado) Overlaps I believe in the OSM scheme, CR is county road. Colorado and Kansas typically stylize their state roads as C and K roads, though the preferable way to map them is CO and KS, respectively. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] MapQuest Open Maps
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but when a local insists on tagging it one way, what's one to do? Let 'em know about consistency. Whenever practical, we should try to be as globally consistent as possible, if for no other reason than being able to document things consistently and to not break data consumers with overly baroque exceptions. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Changeset: 11154859
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11154859 has the comment proposed bikeways (primary greenways as rcn). I wonder, are these actually state cycleways? If not, then LCN would be the correct network. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Changeset: 11154859
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: (These are, in a way, part of a state network, with FDOT providing planning assistance and perhaps funding for connections between rural trails and city centers.) Cool, that's what I was curious about. But hey, stay angry... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * CrystalWalrein closed...@hotmail.com [2012-04-02 15:45 -0700]: For areas in New Jersey, when I look at this rendering, I get county shields for all 500-series roads, but no shields are shown for 600-series roads anywhere. The formatting for county route relations in New Jersey is 'network=US:NJ:[county name]' for all county routes that are not part of the statewide system (for which 'network=US:NJ:CR' is used). This is a known problem and more or less falls under we're not really doing county roads yet. We render the pentagon for routes with the network US:NJ:CR, but there's no rendering yet for US:NJ:county. That's partly because I haven't sorted through the counties to separate out the ones that don't use the blue pentagon, and partly because handling a lot of differently-named but having-very-similar-shields networks would be kind of a pain with our current setup, so I need to write some more code to help with that. Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out, such as Missouri Secondary State Highways, Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes, Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike, or the 7 state highway networks in Texas that aren't Texas... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Alexander Jones happy5...@gmail.com wrote: And oddly, in the San Diego area, CA 209 and CA 75 (Point Loma and Coronado, respectively) don't render with your newer shields, but the old style Mapnik shields. Even in read only mode I am unable coax JOSM to read only so I can't see what these (S 21, CA 209 and CA 75) tags are. It may be that they are tagged in a wrong or odd way, it may be that you aren't catching a certain case of things, I'm not sure. Rosecrans is technically no longer a state highway, as CA 209 was decommissioned in 2003. I could take another look at 75 when the database is editable again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but only routes with relations render with shields, right? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2012-04-03 07:21 -0700]: Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out, such as Missouri Secondary State Highways Someone seems to have made route relations for a lot of these already, with a network of US:MO:Supplemental, so that's what I chose to key off of. Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes Not currently supported. Can you point me at some information about these? I don't think there's been a real effort to tag these yet, the four in Oregon I'm aware of are the Lewis Clark Trail, Oregon Trail, California (aka Applegate) Trail and the Oregon Outback Route. Each of the first three seem to use their own trailblazers and may be interstate in scope. The latter and newer routes use extremely large trailblazers. http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Oregon-Outback-Sign.jpg Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike There's support for the Kansas Turnpike, but it's not rendered because the route relation doesn't have a network on it. (I don't trust every named highway with its own shield to have a globally unique name, so I key off the network, which in most cases I expect to be the same as the main state network.) I'll have to add the Chikasaw Turnpike; I don't see any information about shields for the other Oklahoma turnpikes on Wikipedia. Kansas Turnpike (there's only one) uses the KTA shield universally, often in conjunction with, but usually in absence of, I 35 signage. Oklahoma (like Kansas) has a toll and non-toll highway network, and they don't overlap (with the exception of I 44, which is dual signed with the Turner Turnpike and Rogers Turnpike; guide signs leaving the Turner Turnpike instruct drivers to take I 44 to the Rogers Turnpike to Joplin more or less treating I 44 as nonexistent on the turnpike lengths, despite being dual signed!). All of Oklahoma's turnpikes use identical trailblazers, the only part that changes is the name on the top half of the roundel (in this case, Indian Nations). http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=OK20060731 or the 7 state highway networks in Texas that aren't Texas... Mostly I've followed the networks already in use: US:TX, US:TX:LOOP, US:TX:SPUR, US:TX:FM, US:TX:RM, US:TX:FM:Business, US:TX:NASA, US:TX:PR, some others. A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain 5, it would be rendered properly. FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually the same network), LOOP, SPUR, NASA, Texas I all recognize. I don't see TOLL or REC, and no idea what PR is... Cool on handling such a complex network well. I chose to treat the Old San Antonio Road as a member of the US:TX network with a ref of OSR. I can't remember if it renders that way at the moment. I would be inclined to do the same (despite the nonstandard reference before network signs that that route uses). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: The edge cases are an opportunity for we, as a community, to get it right. There are many many more signed routes that will be interesting to one or more groups, as long as we have a reasonable way to tag them. That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. And these edge cases (city routes and state secondary/supplemental routes, especially oddball (Oregon) and extreme (Texas) cases) make for great prepwork to render cycleway network trailblazers (which tend towards obscenely diverse in much of the US). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain 5, it would be rendered properly. You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep the Loop in the ref tag. This would be inconsistent with the rest of the country, within it's own state, and the documentation if it's not changed. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually the same network) Er no. On roadside assemblies the text FARM ROAD and RANCH ROAD appears, and on green guide signs the shields have FM or RM up top. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/sfb/images/3-1_Types_Route_Sign_Mount.JPG That's like saying California US highways are different from US highways in other states because California still uses the old style sign. Ranch-to-Market and Farm-to-Market roads are another case of same network, different sign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm-to-market_road ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: Ah, okay. I'll set them up just like other named-but-not-publically-numbered routes like the New Jersey Turnpike and look for network US:OK, no ref, and whetever their name is. Just to avoid confusion with ODOT highways (numbered Oklahoma routes which may or may not also be named), perhaps US:OK:Turnpike or something similar? To my knowledge, none of the OTA highways have relations yet. As NE2 said, FM and RM differ in the text on the image, though the rendered shields are too small to be able to tell. We do have US:TX:Toll and US:TX:RE also. PR is Park Road. Wow, that's a level of nitpick I hadn't expected (even in Texas which seems to have so many state highway networks that it wouldn't surprise me to find Your Mom 581 at some point); park roads and rec roads are two different networks there (I tested this: park road 3 and rec road 3 are nowhere near each other). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: * Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]: On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain 5, it would be rendered properly. You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep the Loop in the ref tag. Point taken. They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals choose to change the tagging. So you'll include network=US:US ref=17 Truck as acceptable tagging? Since I'm local to said route. I'd probably go with network=US:US ref=17 modifier=Truck. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: That tagging is nonsense. There's no Truck U.S. Highway network, only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bannered routes pretty much the reason for the modifier tag? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: I stayed up way too late last night. Try visiting those URLs again. (Once again, most of the map will rerender after you've looked at it so the way to see the changes in different areas is to look at them once then come back as much as a half hour later.) Other places that I know are rerendered include these: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14lat=37.27562lon=-79.93635layers=B0 http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=13lat=40.12983lon=-74.71446layers=B0 Amazing, this looks fantastic! Can't wait to see this as the official map of OSM US. Given that trailblazers vary country-to-country, there's no reason this couldn't be applicable worldwide. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: Meh. I was mostly referring to weird stuff like US:TX:FM:Business or US:US:Business:MD. To me, US:US:Business:MD falling back on US:US:Business is fine. Tagwatch processes should catch common cases like US:US:Alternate and US:US:Business and ensure they get rendered correctly. OK, I'll bite. How is putting banners in the network tag preferential? why not something like... network=US:TX:FM modifier=Business network=US:US modifier=Business is_in=Maryland ...instead? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: After more thought, in the general case, deprecating modifier and just using network to denote variations using the established : separator convention is probably sanest. Well, that kind of breaks the whole network concept then, and the key should probably be renamed to fit the expected data... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: I'm experimenting with the Java code from Traveling Salesman http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traveling_salesman I'm making library calls to the routing code and it seems that the router does not understand cul-de-sacs mapped as a single self-intersecting way. I can understand why, it's a little nonstandard. If it's a cul-de-sac with just a turning circle at the end with no median, I would simply put the end node in the center of the turning circle and tag it highway=turning_circle. You can see a subdivision with several of these features at http://osm.org/go/T4_w_KHs If there's an island in the middle, create a circle around the island, set one-way in the direction of rotation (almost always anticlockwise in North America), intersect with outlet way, copy outlet's tags to the ring (think one-exit roundabout minus the junction=roundabout). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Martijn van Exel mve...@gmail.com wrote: A roundabout (or mini_roundabout) implies to me (although it is not defined on the wiki) that there is more than one entry / exit road. So intuitively I'd say that is not an appropriate tag. Additionally, a mini-roundabout doesn't have a hard median, you could sail straight through the island without hitting anything. As far as I'm aware, we don't have these in the US at all. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Martijn van Exel mve...@gmail.com wrote: The wiki actually says 'there might be also a low, fully traversable dome'. My test is is it readily possible to drive over it? If yes, then mini. Otherwise, I treat it as any other median island. A theoretical North Ameircan mini roundabout would be a roundabout with no center island other than a truck apron (that raised concrete area you see on some large roundabouts to allow tractor trailers to run it over safely as they turn, usually lower than the sidewalk, higher than the road, and only for use by trailers off-tracking). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: That's only correct if there are signs saying it's one-way. That's pretty shaky considering that a dividing island (and an island in what would otherwise be a flat turning circle is still such an island) is passed on the right unless posted otherwise in the US and Canada. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 11, 2012 11:48 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: From what I've read, all US highways in California should get similar treatment, in that they're signed with different shields than the standard ones. Are there other regional sign variants for broader road networks in the US (or elsewhere)? Some US highways (segments of US 75A for sure) and many state highways feature generic white circle state route signage, though it's not clear to me if this was deliberate or a case of sign shop error, or older signs not yet replaced, respectively. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 4, 2012 12:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/4/2012 2:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Renderers can fallback to the longest left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't understand. Bad idea. Google Maps does something like this and it results in 'bannered' routes appearing without banners. Seems like renderer and/or data issues at Google. Neither would surprise me, given the number of routes that render numbers as names without shields, and for how long Google was insisting US 30 was really Québec Provincial Route 355 nationwide. That said, just because Google can't do that right shouldn't have any influence on us getting it right. Let's not throw out a Good Idea just because some renderer we don't even use gets it wrong on data we don't even touch. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2012-04-11 17:33 -0700]: On Apr 11, 2012 11:48 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: From what I've read, all US highways in California should get similar treatment, in that they're signed with different shields than the standard ones. Are there other regional sign variants for broader road networks in the US (or elsewhere)? Some US highways (segments of US 75A for sure) and many state highways feature generic white circle state route signage, though it's not clear to me if this was deliberate or a case of sign shop error, or older signs not yet replaced, respectively. I think I'd prefer to ignore unusual or one-off sign variations like those. Let me put it this way: Are there any other places where a local organization responsible for making and placing signs along a route has an official policy of placing signs that differ significantly in appearance from the signs used along the rest of the network? That's what I wasn't clear about above. Though Wikipedia's articles and the actual ground truth seems to show that what is signed as US 75A is actually OK 75A, since it seems Oklahoma considers US bannered/lettered routes as state highways and may not consistently sign it wholly as a state or US highway. Another highway with confusing inconsistencies would be US 412. Parts of it include: - Cherokee Turnpike (signed as Cherokee Turnpike, not signed as US412). - US 412 Scenic (old US 412, a loop bypassing the Cherokee Turnpike, the last free exit in both directions where the turnpike starts; signed as US 412S or US 412 Scenic). - OK 412A (not sure of signage, but is definitely related to US 412; may actually be US 412 Alternate) - OK 412B (not sure of signage, but is definitely related to US 412; may actually be US 412 Business) - OK 412P (signed as OK 412P, definitely a spur of US 412 at the Arkansas River Navigation System; may actually be US 412 Port) Arkansas seems to have similar quirks to Oklahoma on US highways between the Cherokee border and Bentonville; not sure if this is regionalistic signage issues or if the business/alternate/port/scenic roads are really state highways as a result. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-12 16:03 -0400]: Also I-270 Spur in Maryland, which *is* part of the Interstate Highway System and thus belongs in network=US:I First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something the rest of community more or less settled on. Secondly, I think this highlights a reason to use network subsets in the network tag: because it's a simpler rule to apply than deciding whether a variant route is different enough to deserve its own network value. You seem to have a clear idea about what constitutes a network from your perspective--Interstate 75 Alternate and Downtown Interstates do, but Interstate 270 Spur doesn't. I think there's a lot of grey area where people with different perspectives would disagree[0], especially mappers who just want to represent what they see on the signs where they live without arguing the minutiae of which road network a route is really a member of. In short, you seem to want to have the final say about what is or isn't a real network, but OpenStreetMap is a community effort and not only does the network tag can have distinct values for network subsets scheme appear to have broader community support, but it also seems to me to be the most generally applicable by people who in all likelihood will have different opinions about what *really* constitutes a distinct road network. Wait, what? I was under the impression that the banners as a network thing was proposed initially in this discussion, given that the modifier tag has been documented in the wiki for well over a year now. And it makes a lot more sense, since bannered routes aren't a different network. [0] I feel, for instance, that I could make a convincing argument either way as to whether Texas's loop roads should count as their own network or should be part of the state's main network. Texas considers itself to have multiple state networks (Texas, Park, Rec, NASA, Loop, Spur). What's not entirely obvious is if toll routes are their own network (like Kansas and Oklahoma) or merely a bannered route. Likewise for routes signed as US 1, US 1A, and US 1 Alternate. Those would be the same network, though US 1A and 1 Alternate may be the same route. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Apr 13, 2012 6:31 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. Not necessarily. There are an infinite number of correct locations for centerline nodes for ways. Moving them slightly along the centerline will resolve this. Polygon corners are trickier, but not insurmountable, moving the polygon a centimeter should do it... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-April/008032.html for the full discussion around the removal In summary: - The Fresno import has a number of issues - No one is opposed to removal if there are no easier options for cleaning up the data - No one has proposed an easier option Given this, does anyone object if I go ahead with the proposed deletion of unmodified objects from the imports, attempting to preserve areas like schools and fix them if possible. More information isn't necessarily bad; I think it might be better to try to refine the imported data over time if possible. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-April/008032.htm l for the full discussion around the removal In summary: - The Fresno import has a number of issues - No one is opposed to removal if there are no easier options for cleaning up the data - No one has proposed an easier option Given this, does anyone object if I go ahead with the proposed deletion of unmodified objects from the imports, attempting to preserve areas like schools and fix them if possible. More information isn't necessarily bad; I think it might be better to try to refine the imported data over time if possible. To clean up http://maps.paulnorman.ca/imports/review/fresno.png I would start by deleting most of the data. I fail to see the problem with what's already there. A couple of users, one local, have commented that the issues with the import make it difficult to edit in the area. I really can't see a way short of deleting it. JOSM's filter plugin helps a lot, you know. ;o) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Do those individual polygons have any useful information on them (addresses, for example)? If so, we should generate addr points from their centroids. Why? We have these new things called computers that find centroids really well. And the way it's mapped now, it makes it really easy to change a specific lot if the land use changes. Either way, we could save useful OSM information by creating a new polygon from the outside edges of each block. basically, remove all overlapping nodes except the ones on the outside. This way we maintain (semi-)useful landuse information and remove the extremely noisy tax plat information that's there already. Sure, it's noisy, but it's not like we don't have tools to squelch what's not interesting for a specific use case or edit session. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Do those individual polygons have any useful information on them (addresses, for example)? If so, we should generate addr points from their centroids. Why? We have these new things called computers that find centroids really well. And the way it's mapped now, it makes it really easy to change a specific lot if the land use changes. Right. So the computer can find the centroid and generate the addr: point for us. Perfect. (I realize you're saying the data should stay in OSM, but read on...) Why strip the information that creates that calculation? Land use could change, as well, based on condemnation, natural disaster, etc. Having the plot outlines give nice, fine-grained control that will greatly simplify disaster mapping in the future, and the outlines will be of use if the boundaries of the use change (combined or subdivided or whatnot) in the future. Either way, we could save useful OSM information by creating a new polygon from the outside edges of each block. basically, remove all overlapping nodes except the ones on the outside. This way we maintain (semi-)useful landuse information and remove the extremely noisy tax plat information that's there already. Sure, it's noisy, but it's not like we don't have tools to squelch what's not interesting for a specific use case or edit session. The problem with this import is that is the complete opposite of the on the ground rule. There is absolutely no one but the external source of that import that can improve the data. I have the same opinion of other boundaries (I can't go to the coordinates of a particular node along that way and see the boundary on the ground, verifying it with my GPS), but can live with it when they're big and unobtrusive. So what's wrong with refining the data to fit what's on the ground? I seem to recall I made your argument regarding the TIGER imports about 3 years ago when I was new. This is certainly a more accurate and detailed data set than TIGER was; why step backwards? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Because that information is useless in OSM. It was out of date the second someone ran the upload script and unless the city of Fresno decides to switch to OSM for their official tax plat information (which I'm pretty sure would be illegal in most jurisdictions), no one in the community can improve it. We should get rid of it. Property lines are still observable phenomenon, though. Depending on jurisdiction, it might require surveying from the nearest benchmark, but in many cases, there's markers embedded in the nearest curb or other devices indicating the most recent plot boundary. I mentioned the address nodes because it would be the only useful data to keep in OSM. As Toby mentioned, there's no such data. Though the address belongs to an area, so it would make sense to keep the corresponding boundary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Address placement (was: Fresno castradal imports)
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: In OSM, the use case for address data is geocoding and I would argue that general use geocoding users would rather get a building outline or even a node at the main entrance of a location, not the centroid of the property. How are these mutually exclusive, exactly? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: If parcel data is important to disaster response, I would expect the responder to go get the most up to date data from the source, not use stale data that was imported into OSM (potentially) some years ago Doesn't Haiti and Fukushima render this argument irrelevant? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
On May 4, 2012 5:41 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: ...and we need to examine what our existing user tools and server processing and storage resources are and how they can handle the amount of data desired before just blindly throwing many times the existing data size at them. In Bakersfield, the building outlines and some landuse and other objects inflated the data size by ~1000%. Perhaps this makes for a good test case. By the way, didn't Spain and France both go through something similar not that long ago? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed Fresno fixes
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Nathan Mixter srmix...@hotmail.com wrote: 3. Merge landuse areas with the same tag. This will essentially get rid of most of the individual parcels and turn them into one area for areas that are touching. Initially I had hoped the parcels could be addressed. But as someone pointed out, even if they are, they might not be in the center of the building. I'm not convinced this can't still be the case for most plots. Certainly in some edge cases, addresses don't line up with the plot outlines, in which case it would make more sense to map it to the building, but in most cases, the address applies to the whole property. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I've mapped dozens of these as miniroundabouts in the midwest: http://g.co/maps/w7mnr That's not a mini, though, since you can't just drive over the island. Here's an eponymous example of a mini roundabout: http://goo.gl/6Qswf ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 5/7/2012 12:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout. I suppose if you ignored the whole traversability or vertical clearance requirements the wiki's had since the tag was created in the wiki, sure. I ignore that in favor of how the tag actually gets used in the data. A couple watchdogs can keep the wiki saying one thing, but they can't keep usage from diverging. Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o) You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way of mapping. So, you're suggesting we stop mapping nontraversable, hard medians? Because that's what it sounds like. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
So, you're suggesting we stop mapping nontraversable, hard medians? Because that's what it sounds like. Get your ears checked. Not necessary, I'm not the one suggesting node tagging is a substitute for mapping a nontraversible median. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree: http://g.co/maps/e2gsv What about this one? Also a full on roundabout? http://g.co/maps/d6n74 This looks more like a roundabout to me: http://g.co/maps/hnbp9 All three are roundabouts, yes. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Millsnat...@nwacg.net wrote: http://g.co/maps/hnbp9 All three are roundabouts, yes. How are you going to properly map the first one? There is no channelization or anything that makes the intersection circular. The curbs at the four corners have the typical intersection radius. It's a square with a circle in the middle. It's also designed for fire trucks to roll over the edges, since they can't otherwise fit. (also the one in the second link, but it at least pretends to be a ring of driving surface around a central point) Draw circle at median distance between corner curbs and outside edge of central apron on the median. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-06-20
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: On 06/24/2012 02:21 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Wow, the 4000MB image is looking a wee bit light...indeed the kml indicates a serious swiss cheese factor. What happened? Looks like Lambertus has been busy. A bunch of stuff has changed. It'll take some time to fix up. So this isn't the final size yet? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Dave and Lambertus Garmin maps
One thing I've been wondering about for a while now is if it's possible to get the maxspeed and possibly minspeed values to be included. This would be handy to have as some areas have fairly complete speed data, and make it easier to spot inaccuracies and missing speed data. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Dave and Lambertus Garmin maps
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: On 06/26/2012 08:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: One thing I've been wondering about for a while now is if it's possible to get the maxspeed and possibly minspeed values to be included. This would be handy to have as some areas have fairly complete speed data, and make it easier to spot inaccuracies and missing speed data. There's a link to a forum here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/ where Lambertus seems to be pretty active. I'd try posting there. I take it you don't have much knowledge on this? Looking at Lambertus' site, now I wonder what the difference between the Generic Routable and the Bicycle Routable is. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scenic/Historic byways
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff k...@lavabit.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:02:32PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote: there are a couple of Heritage Corridors in NY State, i'm not aware of any efforts to tag them as such. Wisconsin has an actual state network of Rural Roads that are numbered. I haven't checked to see if anyone created a network for them yet, but I don't believe it exists. That's not quite the same thing as what's being discussed. Many states, like Oregon (unsigned but numbered, like OR 120, OR 141 and parts of OR 99W), Missouri (lettered, like MO TT), Texas (Farm-Market, NASA, etc), have secondary highways/rural routes. Some states, like Oregon (auto trails), Oklahoma (All-American Roads, Scenic Roads), and Texas (Recreation Routes) have tertiary, touristically oriented networks. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scenic/Historic byways
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: In Maryland, the state has a brochure showing more or less where the byways are, and they're not entirely consistently signed[0]. I've put one into OpenStreetMap[1] and tagged it much as you did the Western Vistas Historic Byway, but I used a network of US:MD for lack of a better option. (US:MD:Scenic Byway might make sense, too.) My vote would be for US:MD:Scenic. Let's keep it simple. I think the best way to handle National Scenic Byways and All American Roads is just to add national_scenic_byway=yes and all_american_road=yes tags (sorry) to the route relations as appropriate. That probably doesn't address your Historic Byway, but I haven't read anything about those. Is it possible that these are networks to themselves? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Richard Weait schrieb: Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others. After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern California this time), I started wondering if there should be a mass edit to switch all the highway=residential (or other highway values set en masse and mostly wrong) that are from TIGER imports and still on v1 objects to highway=road instead. I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified getting counted as residential (a more urban classification). I'd be willing to extend this idea to any way tagged tiger:reviewed=no still, regardless of version number. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified getting counted as residential (a more urban classification). I'd be willing to extend this idea to any way tagged tiger:reviewed=no still, regardless of version number. This seems like pointing a sledge hammer at an anthill. We would actually consider changing 99% of the roads, some of which have been reviewed for name, type, and alignment but not for distance (I have done many of these), just to address a 1% problem? I would hazard to guess that this is closer to being a 85% problem, given the sheer scale of the country and how few roads are actually urban in nature or paved at all. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] LA part of the map essentially is unusable
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.comwrote: Everyone, ****Having looked over the damage and deletions for the last hour, I feel the redaction has left the LA map essentially unusable. Huge blocks of streets are missing, including major roads and some sections of freeways. ****Do we think that the US map can have any validity if it doesn't include LA? To be fair, folks outside California generally are of the opinion that the US would have more validity if it didn't include LA. ;o) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Post bot cleanup
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.comwrote: Do you have any idea how big LA is? Do you have any idea how big the rest of the world is? It's not always about LA, sister. Get over it and start fixing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tracking Interstate Work Progress on OSM Wiki
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM, the Old Topo Depot oldto...@novacell.comwrote: What do folks on the list think of using a page such as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:JohnANovak/Interstates to track progress on Interstates (and similarly for other major road classes as well) Not bad. I've been tracking relations I've started on relevant locale pages, such as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oklahoma and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portland. I wonder if there's a way to make a template that can be centrally maintained for consistency for these tables. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike infrastructure
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to complete local bicycle infrastructure here in and around
Salt Lake City. I obtained GIS data (a shapefile) containing local
bike infrastructure[1], and a lot of it is already in there. I do have
a few questions:
* Some streets are marked 'quiet streets'. This does not imply any
special rights for cyclists as far as I know, but would be a preferred
route (over busier, less safe streets). How to tag that?
Depending on if it's especially low speed and shared space or not, I'd try:
highway=living_street
or
highway=residential
bicycle=designated
* There are different types of 'shared lanes'. ('green shared lane',
'shared lane marking', etc.). How to tag these?
bicycle=designated
* The 'signed shared roadway' that I think I asked about before still
puzzles me. It is just a sign saying 'bikes share the road' as far as
I know, but does not imply any special rights for cyclists. How does
this map onto OSM tagging, if at all?
bicycle=designated
And I'd add these as members to an appropriate LCN relation as applicable
in any case.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway ref again.
On Jul 26, 2012 11:30 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: ref=FH nn - USFS Forest Highway ref=FR nXn[n][.n] - USFS Forest Route/Road ref=FT nXn[n][.n] - USFS Forest Trail IIRC, all three of these are a single NFD network, for National Forest Development, and are distinguishable unambiguously by whether they have two, three or more digits in their number. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway ref again.
On Jul 27, 2012 8:07 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At least in Region 5 (CA), the roads have N or S in the X position, while trails have E or W. However, I wasn't sure that everyone would necessarily know that, so I went with a more descriptive prefix, based on the terminology Forest Highway/Road/Trail found on the USFS site. I figured the situation analogous to the Interstate system, where primary routes are always two digits (5 and 8 being 05 and 08) with three-digit interstates starting in odds being spurs and evens as bypasses as being regionally assumed information. Road numbers in other USFS forests seem to be largely numeric, sometimes with a letter suffix. Not sure about trails. Most mentions I see are names, not numbers. One thing that seems to be largely consistent are that highways are two digits, roads are three, and trails are four or more digits, all in the xxyz, where xx is the parent highway (or the primary one it connects to if a road or trail), y is the road and z being the trail number (0 if a direct connection). For example, NFD 4891 is a 4x4 trail connecting to 4x4 trail 4890, which connects to 48. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Highway ref again.
OK, to the list this time...damn gmail and lack of reply-to-list... On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netwrote: Getting the road/trail names/numbers out of the USFS is difficult, requiring a fair amount of research to find a map on which it is legible, searching for it in their road inventories, etc. I've done some of the unpaved roads in the SB, Angeles, and Cleveland forests with which I'm familiar, but I think there are a lot of trails to do still. Fortunately, the National Forest Development routes are all signed. They might not necessarily use trailblazers (save for the two-digit routes, but sometimes not even then, as is the case with Larch Mountain Road in the Oregon side of the Columbia Gorge, which someone seems to have removed the ref from and continued the name past where the name applies onto the unnamed NFD road). Looks like the three levels are more distinctively differentiated between primary, secondary and tertiary a bit more distinctively, and even provides hints on motorcar=* tags. http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/em7100-15/page13.htm Of course, this brings us to a previous discussion on preferred/discouraged access tagging, since the forest service outright states they manage access that way in their manual. Pretty safe bet that anything vertically signed is highway=track at best. TIGER did import most, if not all, of the National Forest Development route numbers, though incorrectly identifying them as names instead of refs (and an extremely rare example of the way actually holding the ref instead of an overlying route in the US). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Portland beering
I know I was put in charge of the next Portland beering, but I'm going to have to pass the torch...life got a bit complicated pretty much right off the bat after I took the torch, so I wasn't able to follow through on that. I'm leaving Portland in about two weeks thanks to some happy developments on the professional front, so there's pretty much no way I'm going to be able to organize it in a location that's convenient to the Portland community. Mybad! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tags for Emergency Interstate
On Aug 2, 2012 2:19 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: What is an emergency Interstate? I don't think I have ever heard that phrase before. Is it a detour to be used while the Interstate highway is under repair? For when the mainline is closed due to emergency, in locations where this is prone to happen regularly or when an interstate would need excess capacity to handle evacuation volume. Typically forms a loop between two junctions on adjacent parallel routes that becomes a one way loop in case of emergency closure or add extra lanes when all available routes go away from a disaster. One such example exists along Oregon's I5 corridor. Intersections that are traversed by the emergency route are closed to cross traffic in most cases, and locations where the route turns at a junction typically have a ramp to straighten out what would otherwise be a tight turn, usually gated such that the ramp is inaccessible under normal circumstances but becomes the only way through when it's operating as the interstate. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I just noticed user SimMoonXP ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimMoonXP ) reclassifying a few isolated stretches of KS highway 7 in the Kansas City area. I sent a message asking why and he indicated that he was reclassifying anything with a separated grade intersection as motorway, even if it was only for a short stretch. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.117lon=-94.8924zoom=14layers=M I know there is some disagreement about road classification, especially when it comes to trunk but I'm pretty sure most people would agree that this is incorrect. Thoughts? This is definitely a trunk where it's tagged motorway. The road appears to be limited access, though features some surface level intersections, making it ripe for trunk (the other motorway is really a trunk instance I consider pretty clearly as trunk is a super two or undivided highway with no surface junctions, only ramps, such as the Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma. Unfortunately I think this user has been making such changes across the US. Argh...everybody's heard my opinion on very large scale tag torquing already... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I know there is some disagreement about road classification, especially when it comes to trunk but I'm pretty sure most people would agree that this is incorrect. Thoughts? I've been told you should use highway=trunk, expressway=yes for this. Not sure of the validity or widespread use of the tag. The trunk part, yes. The expressway part, I don't see anything outright wrong with it, but don't see a whole lot of value, either, as the term is loaded. Oklahoma, for example, calls both freeways and expressways as expressway (such as the War Veteran's Expressway south of Tulsa or the MLK Expressway in Tulsa), New Jersey and Delaware seem to only call toll roads expressways (even though they're toll motorways). Likewise, undivided freeways and divided expressways are obviously differentiated by the number of roadways and whether or not there's intersections with something other than a link. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Richard Weait wrote: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/expressway expressway=yes, seems to be a fringe tag at best. I believe our German friends use motorroad=yes for this. Not quite. American expressways sometimes, but not always, have driveways, tracks and service roads connecting, German motorroads don't. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Fwd: [okgis] 2012 TIGER files
This is probably of interest to us. -- Forwarded message -- From: Todd Fagin tfa...@coordinatesolutions.com Date: Aug 23, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: [okgis] 2012 TIGER files To: ok...@gis.ou.edu For those interested in these things, it looks as if the 2012 TIGER files are now available. (If someone else already posted this, sorry for the duplication.) http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2012/tgrshp2012.html Todd Fagin Coordinate Solutions, Inc. 2804 NW 18th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73107 405.740.4324 (voice) 904.471.5548 (fax) www.coordinatesolutions.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Large area of deleted streets in Riverside, Calif.
On Sep 11, 2012 10:43 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: a lot of the tiger looks the same, but for some of the really awful areas, tiger 2011/12 looks a great deal better. i'm planning on some selective replacement of unedited bad tiger data with newer, better tiger in upstate NY as i find areas where tiger has improved a lot. The greater Tulsa and Oklahoma City areas could probably be vastly improved by this as well. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.comwrote: **Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. The postal abbreviation for the state name is the preferred method for state route refs on ways, though I would strongly encourage you to create a relation instead (unless you're correcting a not-state-code abbreviation outside of Texas...in which I'd still confirm there's an existing relation for the route). Texas is the notable oddball, thanks to having 7 state highway networks): TX only applies to State Highways (TX 18). Rec roads get (iirc) RR (RR 10), Farm/Ranch to Market get FM (FM 3075), Park roads get (iirc) PR (PR 10), Loops and Spurs get Loop or Spur (Loop 375, Spur 220), and and NASA routes get NASA (NASA 1). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: what i recall is that NE2 likes the appearance of bare route numbers and most of his ref tags have no prefix at all (see FL, PA, NJ among other states where he did a lot of this.) this was, of course, tagging for a particular mapnik rendering appearance. make your own judgements. In his defence, he did just edit I 44 through my area, and the only tagging difference on ref=* (several tags were edited) was removal of a space in ref=I 44; OK 66 to be ref=I 44;OK 66 (and sacking is_in). Not entirely clear what the ultimate goal of the changeset was, but I didn't really see anything overtly wrong with it so I let it go. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Is it Tulsa time?
On Sep 18, 2012 10:09 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Does anybody have an update on their local OSM meetings? Just looking at nearby mappers, I would hazard to guess Tulsa probably has the critical mass to get the local chapter party started. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Portland Transit -- TriMet
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Plus, there's going to be an interesting talk on the schedule about the trip planner and the headway OSM has made in Portland, in part as a part of this project. A little sorry I'm not going to be able to make it considering how much effort I helped put into the cycleway network mapping there. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-09-26
Speed limit and/or lane data as available would be awesome, too. On Oct 1, 2012 8:54 AM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: On 09/30/2012 11:47 PM, Paul Norman wrote: Could you annex part of BC into the west coast? Sure. I'll look in to it the next time I tear in to the code. :) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-09-26
OK, I messaged him. On a GPRS connection, so hopefully the website took it. On Monday, October 1, 2012, Martijn van Exel wrote: No, Lambertus hangs out on the forum mostly, and talk-nl probably. I can relay a message to him if you want. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netjavascript:; wrote: On 10/1/12 2:21 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Does Lambertus follow the list? i don't know, but he does read and respond to messages sent through the openstreetmap.org messaging system. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org javascript:; http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-10-09
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-10-09 Don't get too excited, folks... most of the southern plains including almost all of Kansas, Arkansas and Missouri, half of Oklahoma, and half of Texas are borked over on the Lambertus side. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-10-15
Was hoping to see a 10/16 or 10/17 snapshot, since I just did a good size edit for Tulsa highway construction and the brand new overpass now permanently closed over Charles Page Boulevard that a garbage truck totalled on Monday... On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: Yeah. There were a lot of files that I was unable to download in the last few sets. This one seems to be without issues. -- Dave On Oct 17, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: excellent. these are back up to the expected size, and so presumably are fairly complete. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Fwd: Scrubbing route relations
Dammit, I hit reply instead of reply-to-list. Apologies to Mike if he expected this to be private. I'd also appreciate input on Indian roads, since, with the exception of Laguna Pueblo roads (all of which have reference numbers starting with L), I'm not sure how to properly differentiate each tribe's roads from one another, or even properly classify them as a network. Not sure if they would be their own top level network or as a subnet of US (network=US:Cherokee vs network=Cherokee as example) given the greatly varied treaty status of various nations...see also previously mentioned concerns about aboriginal indigenous/indian reservation tagging and administration boundaries from 2010 that still go unresolved... (The whole tribal boundary tagging and tribal road tagging thing is rearing it's ugly head for me again since 1) I'm back in Tulsa and it's kind of a major issue in this part of North America, what with 34 tribes in well under a day's drive from me, and 2) I just drove Historic US 66 from the Santa Monica Pier to get back here, and the modern network and route are often tribal in nature, so this is by no means whatsoever a regionally isolated problem, and i'd like to have some idea how I'm going to handle that problem when I start going over my Route 66 traces). -- Forwarded message -- From: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com Date: Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations To: Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org Yes, I like that! The one issue I have with omitting the CR is that it becomes hard to categorize anything as county roads generally without knowing all 3,500 US county names. -mike. On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: A little convoluted. I'd rather see something on the order of US:state:county:city. network=US:US, ref=75 would be US 75. network=US:OK, ref=33 would be Oklahoma State Highway 33. network=US:CA:San Bernardino, ref=66 would be San Bernardino County Route 66 in California. network=US:OR:Multnomah:Portland name=Scenic Loop would be the Portland city Scenic Loop route in Multnomah County, Oregon. On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote: Hi Richard, thanks! The CR vs. County name thing is new to me. Another mapper suggested that I replace them with something like this so it's not necessary to know all the county names in order to correctly interpret something as a county route: network=US:NY:CR:Rensselaer Kosher? -mike. On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Richard Welty wrote: the scrubbing looks mostly ok, BUT... i am one of the folks who started out using US:state:CR for county route networks, which i now believe was a mistake. we really should be using county names, not CR in the network tag, e.g. network=US:NY:Rensselaer otherwise we can't really tell which county the route is in, and can't distinguish CR 1 in Columbia County from CR 1 in Rensselaer County. richard On 10/18/12 7:26 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: Hi everyone, We're getting ready to do a major data update to the Stamen Terrain layer and I've been working on scrubbing the route relations data from OSM. I've linked to a before and after CSV, processed via Google Refine to normalize networks, refs and modifiers. I'm curious to get some feedback on it: http://mike.teczno.com/img/osm-scrubbed-routes-2012-09.zip ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.comwrote: I think there is still some misunderstanding. One of the transforms is: 1704295,road,US:TX:Spur,601,,US:TX,601,Spur,happy5214,5 Spur in Texas is not a modifier; it's a distinct type of route that is numbered separately from the main state highway system. Same deal with Loop, etc. http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html#US-TX gives a pretty comprehensive list. FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice here... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, Alexander Jones happy5...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Johnson wrote: FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice here... I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was one network per shield type. They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch Road interchangeably. They're definitely the same network. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:57 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: Did they switch from one term to the other at some point? If so, the mix of signs on the same route might be because some of the signs have been replaced as they rusted out and/or got used for target practice. Not that I'm aware of, though the RANCH ROAD signs tend to be in areas where livestock ranching is more prevalent as opposed to crop farming, where the FARM ROAD signs are more prevalent, it's more trying to match the network name as posted to the adjacent landuse and only having a moderate rate of success. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: You can check the highway designation file for the correct designation of specific routes. If something else is on the sign, the local district probably screwed up (several TxDOT district offices aren't exactly known for their scrupulous observance of state standards). Seems to be a recurring theme in the plains. ODOT in Oklahoma finally just got US 75 Alt signed consistently with the MUTCD signage. Used to be a mix of the proper signage, State Highway 75 Alt, SH 75A, and US 75A. No idea how that one happened unless someone at ODOT was just trying to troll the Sapulpa-Okmulgee traffic. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Moderation is one thing. Important messages can still go through, if someone is moderated. But in this case he apparently was kicked off the list completely. I'm not sure what behavior caused such a severe sanction, but if it was warranted, then the person shouldn't be allowed to edit either. Seconded. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SOTM-US 2013
I'm going to go ahead and get it started by nominating beautiful Tulsa, Oklahoma for SOTM 2013. On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hey Kate - Good question. Given the fact that we're shooting for an early SOTM next year, we're really strapped of time for a formal bid process. I know this is not ideal but I think the ability to move SOTM-US to a better date in regards to the international conference is worth it. If you were plannning on bidding or if you know of anyone bidding I would suggest to make it known here or just get in touch with bon...@mapbox.com. We should absolutely open a formal bidding process at the SOTM-US 2013 conference for 2014. On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hi Alex, Is there going to be a bid process as with previous years? Thanks! -Kate On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: OpenStreetMap US is kicking off planning for State of the Map 2013. With an international conference likely taking place in the fall of 2013 (no confirmation from official places, this is an educated guess at this point), we are shooting for a first half of the year date - thinking around April, May or June. Not being too close to important international OSM dates will allow us to continue to build out the international appeal of the US SOTM. Bonnie Bogle, who did much of the organizing at this year's SOTM in Portland, is starting right now with researching viable locations and dates. We are looking for places that will allow for an affordable conference at a great location and date. If you'd like to help organize, I invite you to join the planning committee, please let it be known here on this thread or shoot Bonnie an email at bon...@mapbox.com. Alex Barth (Secretary OpenStreetMap US) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] 'creative' mapping
Looks like someone mapped a haymaze. On Nov 13, 2012 9:12 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I got this from a MapRoulette user: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.414586lon=-84.815333zoom=18layers=M Anyone know what this is about? -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Newly tweaked TIGER road names tiles
Oh, and they're flat out hosed in the Tulsa County area, particularly at the same latitude as Broken Arrow (TIGER carries Broken Arrow-specific street names into Tulsa City improperly). On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.comwrote: Toby, ****We do have to be careful with these. An earlier effort created some incorrect tagging in the Four Corners area, where I map, ****--W Road (a county road in SW Colorado) ended up as West Road and S Road as South Road. ****--And, N36 (for Navajo 36) ended up as North 36, as did a lot of Navajo roads. It took me a while to figure out what was happening. Luckily I have a contact at Navajo Division of Transportation, who assured me they have no roads named North. ****I still find these from time to time, so a lot of incorrect tags were created. ****But, if you've got a good way to do it, great! It sure is tedious to do them manually. Charlotte At 01:40 PM 11/18/2012, you wrote: As we briefly discussed during the virtual mappy hour last week, I have managed to wrangle some TIGER data and do some automated expansion of abbreviated street names on the TIGER road name tiles. The results can be seen in a new tile layer. You can preview it here: http://tile.osm.osuosl.org/tiles/tiger2012_roads_expanded/preview.html#17/37.79816/-122.24627 I just added the appropriate URLs for the new layer to the TIGER 2012 page on the wiki so you can use them in JOSM and Potlatch as well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_2012 Since this is a brand new tile layer, nothing is cached in the CDN so requests might be a little slower than normal at first. I am fairly certain about the accuracy of the process and the checks I have performed all came back with good results. But of course TIGER being such a large and varied data set, there might be an odd edge case lurking somewhere so it would be great if some people could check their areas and make sure they don't see anything odd. The other tweak I made after a suggestion from Ian was to draw the tiles in two layers. One drawn first with only lines and then another layer with only names on top of it. This means that road names will always appear on top of road lines. This avoids roads obscuring names and improves readability. Technical details: This was *not* done by doing simple string matching. I downloaded all of the Feature Names Relationship files which contain separate fields with codes for directional, type and qualifier prefixes/suffixes. Then I composed the name one element at a time from these fields. This gave me a mapping from TLID to expanded street name which I then imported into a new column in the existing table that is used to render the tiles. Then it was just a simple matter of telling the mapnik style to look at the new expanded name column. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ** ** Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady *The Four Internet Freedoms* Freedom to visit any site on the Internet Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would affect the first three freedoms. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Operation Cowboy - Progress/Todo
I don't think the Tulsa one is going to happen, lack of venue. On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de wrote: Hi Folks, the organisation of Operation Cowboy seems to be nearly finished. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Operation_Cowboyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Operation_Cowboy I guess we have enough target areas and thanks to Martjins Map Roulett enough ideas on how to find new tasks :) Thanks fly out to everybody who starts a mapping cake! Thanks to Charlotte (Techlady) we had some *press releases* and it seemed to worked: http://www.spatialsource.com.**au/2012/11/20/article/** OpenStreetMap-second-annual-**map-a-thon-on-this-weekend/**RNXTDSVBSV.htmlhttp://www.spatialsource.com.au/2012/11/20/article/OpenStreetMap-second-annual-map-a-thon-on-this-weekend/RNXTDSVBSV.html http://www.h-online.com/open/**news/item/OpenStreetMap-** launches-Operation-Cowboy-**1751382.htmlhttp://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenStreetMap-launches-Operation-Cowboy-1751382.html But if you like, you can try to still push the event, as it might be a good idea to bring attention of US IT media to the quality assurance topic and that we still looking for more mappers becausethere is still a lot of work to do in America. Sadly slashdot and raddit didn't work for me here :/ Another good thing would be *social media* so spreading to word to attract our global community (and others of course): - https://twitter.com/opcowboy and #OPC2012 - Starting a facebook or google+ account anyone? - Maintaining the IRC channel? Setup a bot? Might be interesting, that this party, we __might__ get a nice animation by Derick Rethans. But hey, let's first do the job and enjoy the results afterwards ;) bye, Matthias __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Operation Cowboy - Progress/Todo
I've tried to do that, Tulsa County referred me to Creek County...Creek
County doesn't return my calls and they never seem to be open (do we still
have a library??). I think Thanksgiving is a big factor, and I would
expect the lack of visibility among tribal citizens being a contributor (my
tribe doesn't consider this week to have holidays, for example; not sure
about others).
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012, Jim McAndrew wrote:
Paul,
Martijn had suggested contacting the local library and seeing if you can
reserve a study room or something like that.
If you can't pull something together this weekend (it's not really a good
weekend for get togethers in the US), I would love to attend a mapping
party in OK in the future. So planning a mapping party in the future could
also be a good idea.
--
Jim
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Paul Johnson
ba...@ursamundi.orgjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'ba...@ursamundi.org');
wrote:
I don't think the Tulsa one is going to happen, lack of venue.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Matthias Meißer
dig...@arcor.dejavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dig...@arcor.de');
wrote:
Hi Folks,
the organisation of Operation Cowboy seems to be nearly finished.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Operation_Cowboyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Operation_Cowboy
I guess we have enough target areas and thanks to Martjins Map Roulett
enough ideas on how to find new tasks :) Thanks fly out to everybody who
starts a mapping cake!
Thanks to Charlotte (Techlady) we had some *press releases* and it
seemed to worked:
http://www.spatialsource.com.**au/2012/11/20/article/**
OpenStreetMap-second-annual-**map-a-thon-on-this-weekend/**
RNXTDSVBSV.htmlhttp://www.spatialsource.com.au/2012/11/20/article/OpenStreetMap-second-annual-map-a-thon-on-this-weekend/RNXTDSVBSV.html
http://www.h-online.com/open/**news/item/OpenStreetMap-**
launches-Operation-Cowboy-**1751382.htmlhttp://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenStreetMap-launches-Operation-Cowboy-1751382.html
But if you like, you can try to still push the event, as it might be a
good idea to bring attention of US IT media to the quality assurance topic
and that we still looking for more mappers becausethere is still a lot of
work to do in America. Sadly slashdot and raddit didn't work for me here :/
Another good thing would be *social media* so spreading to word to
attract our global community (and others of course):
- https://twitter.com/opcowboy and #OPC2012
- Starting a facebook or google+ account anyone?
- Maintaining the IRC channel? Setup a bot?
Might be interesting, that this party, we __might__ get a nice animation
by Derick Rethans. But hey, let's first do the job and enjoy the results
afterwards ;)
bye,
Matthias
__**_
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'Talk-us@openstreetmap.org');
http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'Talk-us@openstreetmap.org');
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER expansion bot
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, Toby Murray wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Brian May b...@mapwise.comjavascript:; wrote: On 11/27/2012 7:06 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.comjavascript:; wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: [...] The tiger.py file contains TIGER specific expansion code, and the selection process is quite simple. The selector looks for ways which have a highway key and a name key present in the tag. Just to be clear (and from glancing at the code), this will only expand type/prefix/suffix if it has a corresponding tiger:* tag? Yes. Another clarification for this use case: A user changes the original highway name tag from Main St SW to SW Main Street, but did not alter the tiger tags. So - if the street name has been edited and the tiger tags were left unchanged (and now do not match the street name), the bot will not change the street name value, correct? In other words, the tiger tags will not override anything in the highway:name tag if its been edited, correct? Time for concrete examples and tests. I just ran a test file through the bot. It had a single way in it with the following tags: highway=residential name=Main St SW tiger:name_base=Main tiger:name_type=St tiger:name_direction_suffix=SW This resulted in the name being expanded to Main Street Southewst Then I left all tags the same but changed name=Southwest Main Street and the bot did not make any changes. This seems correct to me. Depends on where. Some places really do suffix the direction, so if TIGER was representative of local practice, then Main Street Southwest would be accurate. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing
On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Brian May wrote: On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote: Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons. For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store mailing addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver the tax bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I would bet there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode values in the site address fields (where they are populated). Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead? As parcels change shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated. It's not really possible to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
