Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap U.S. Inc
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hey All, Just wanted to let you know OpenStreetMap U.S. Inc exists now. This is so we can eventually become a chapter of OpenStreetMap. We'll be moving forward with getting an EIN (tax number) from the IRS, working out the Chapter agreement, etc shortly. Thanks for all your (and the temp board's) hard work on this, Kate! Woohoo! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap U.S. Inc
Excellent news Kate! I know this has taken a lot of work from you and a few others. It's great to see it all coming together! On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hey All, Just wanted to let you know OpenStreetMap U.S. Inc exists now. This is so we can eventually become a chapter of OpenStreetMap. We'll be moving forward with getting an EIN (tax number) from the IRS, working out the Chapter agreement, etc shortly. Thanks for all your (and the temp board's) hard work on this, Kate! Woohoo! ___ 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] OpenStreetMap U.S. Inc
Thats great news! We should contact the software in the public interest foundation for funding, they might give some money. mike On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote: Excellent news Kate! I know this has taken a lot of work from you and a few others. It's great to see it all coming together! On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hey All, Just wanted to let you know OpenStreetMap U.S. Inc exists now. This is so we can eventually become a chapter of OpenStreetMap. We'll be moving forward with getting an EIN (tax number) from the IRS, working out the Chapter agreement, etc shortly. Thanks for all your (and the temp board's) hard work on this, Kate! Woohoo! ___ 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
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundaries tied to roads
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: From an old message: I take the point that 'road realignment' may require the boundary also to move, but the word is MAY and so what ever happens to the road, the location of the boundary needs to be checked separately! It is quite surprising in the UK how many roads are being moved, but that does not also move the original boundary. I see that the separate VS tangled argument has been settled in the US by the Duplicate Node attack bots, who have blindly merged all duplicate nodes. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38855677 When I imported GNIS last year, a fairly significant portion of the data (2-5%) had POI with coordinates exactly the same as another POI (e.g. a post office inside a town hall building). I wonder what these duplicate nod bots are doing with those nodes... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundaries tied to roads
On 4/19/10 1:45 PM, Mike N. wrote: From an old message: I take the point that 'road realignment' may require the boundary also to move, but the word is MAY and so what ever happens to the road, the location of the boundary needs to be checked separately! It is quite surprising in the UK how many roads are being moved, but that does not also move the original boundary. I see that the separate VS tangled argument has been settled in the US by the Duplicate Node attack bots, who have blindly merged all duplicate nodes. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38855677 i don't know if settled is the word for it, the debate is still open, but currently the josm validator reports duplicate nodes as errors, and provides a fix button that merges them. it's not fully automated like a bot, but the result is effectively the same. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundaries tied to roads
At 2010-04-19 10:45, Mike N. wrote: I see that the separate VS tangled argument has been settled in the US by the Duplicate Node attack bots, who have blindly merged all duplicate nodes. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38855677 Is this really happening? Can someone describe exactly what criteria are being used, and just how it was decided that this was a good idea? Seems like the wrong thing to do - city and county boundaries are often defined in law, or by survey, and do not necessarily keep up with changes in road alignment. I have resisted editing most of these boundaries until/unless I take the time to research the true definition of the boundary. Not to mention that merging them will result in the inability to hide these boundaries. When doing a bunch of editing on a road that follows one, in the past, I've taken the time to verify that the boundary doesn't share any nodes with anything and then remove it from my local OSM file manually so I don't have to constantly deal with it. If it shares nodes with anything else, this is no longer possible. Sounds a lot like the IMO ill-considered road name expansion that was apparently agreed upon by a small group of people without input from the majority of active mappers whose work has been damaged. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
