[Talk-us] Shaped highway shields - trying to revive

(I apologize in advance to the tile-serving community if this message is inappropriate. I see that traffic on that list is largely limited to highly specific technical discussions, but couldn't see a more appropriate forum.) For several years now, I've been using the support code for shaped

[Talk-us] place=locality on rail junction

I notice around me that the map appears cluttered by a number of 'place=locality' points with alphanumeric names like 'CPF 499' which appear to be the reference numbers of rail junctions. Tellingly, the objects all seem to have been added by user 'NE2', who was well known a few years ago for

Re: [Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

The Articles of Confederation included the text, "The Stile of this Confederation shall be the 'United States of America'" The Constitution omits any declaration of the correct name and style, and in fact uses both styles, even in the Preamble. as Daniel Koć observes. There are conspiracy

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:31 PM Brian May wrote: > This may have been stated already, but just wanted to make it clear - > State laws on public records filter down through all regional and local > governments operating within the state. So if state law doesn't > explicitly give a county

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

I realize that my last couple of messages were sent from the wrong return address and didn't go to the list. Oops. Apologies to anyone who's getting this twice. On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 11:24 Jack Burke wrote: >> While some counties just attach a number to a pole (e.g., many counties in >>

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Just ref=CR 123. The name should not be redundant to the ref, so if it's > signed as Clark Co. 123 and that's it, then add noname=yes as well. The name > is only the name, name is not ref. I'm fine with an unnamed way having just a ref

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:24 PM Jack Burke wrote: > While some counties just attach a number to a pole (e.g., many counties in > Georgia), there are some that put up signs saying "CR 123" (Jasper County, > Mississippi) for unnamed county roads. However, Clarke County, Mississippi > signs

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 4:28 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > TL:DR: The closest answer to Clifford Snow's original question for New > > York is http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=932 > > which is virtually certain (the law, as always is muddy) to be > > ODBL

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

Went and sent this from the wrong return address - trying again. On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 4:26 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 1:05 PM OSM Volunteer stevea > wrote: > > I'm not an attorney, though were I to attempt to sharpen focus on these two >

Re: [Talk-us] Senseless Sidewalks Part 2: Crisis Averted

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 6:32 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > First, the title: Frederik Ramm noticed that 9 ways, representing a total of > 18 nodes, in Austin, Texas were untagged, and they should've been tagged as > sidewalks (footways). I fixed them. It took less than two minutes as I also >

Re: [Talk-us] Senseless Germans, again.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:32 AM Ian Dees wrote: > Hearing that Americans "inhabit a culture of ad-hoc expedience and > sloppiness" or getting an email from a member of the Data Working Group > threatening to revert your contributions is not particularly inspiring. It's > no wonder it's so

Re: [Talk-us] Senseless Germans, again.

Please, let's tone down the rhetoric here - both of you! Frederik has a long and distinguished history with OSM. He cares about the map passionately. He wants very much to see things done right. Alas, that tends to mean that he forgets at times what it means to be a novice, and expects perfection

Re: [Talk-us] Senseless Germans, again.

Please, let's tone down the rhetoric here - both of you! Frederik has a long and distinguished history with OSM. He cares about the map passionately. He wants very much to see things done right. Alas, that tends to mean that he forgets at times what it means to be a novice, and expects perfection

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level=8 boundaries in Parker County, TX

TL;DR: Cadastre in the US is untidy. (1) Boundaries through buildings are not at all uncommon. Typically, the landowner owes some apportionment of property tax to both jurisdictions. The people I know who live in property that lies in multiple school districts have the choice of which

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Bing Building Import

The damage done by the "foot shot" is the damage to the community. At least one researcher found a way to study this (because of inadvertent import quality issues with TIGER) and found that the areas with better import quality wound up more poorly mapped over time. I'm convinced that there are

[Talk-us] Protected areas again.

I see that the rendering of protected areas on the main map is, if not done, at least close to being there. It's great to see this issue nearly laid to rest. There's one further thing that I'd like advice about. I'd encoded 'watershed recreation area' as protect_class=12 protection_object=water,

Re: [Talk-us] Prospect Mountain Interchange Reconfiguration, Binghamton NY

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > You're welcome. I don't think that was the I-81/I-86 interchange that > NYSDOT was referring to, but yeah, I figured it ought to be fixed. I'm > pretty sure NYSDOT is referring to the T-interchange a few miles NW of

Re: [Talk-us] Prospect Mountain Interchange Reconfiguration, Binghamton NY

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm kind of in a crunch at work, so my time is quite limited at the > moment. Moreover, I'm in the Capital Region, not down near Binghamton, so I > don't anticipate having any opport

Re: [Talk-us] Prospect Mountain Interchange Reconfiguration, Binghamton NY

wrote: > Thanks for the heads up Andy! > Of the top of my head, I consider Russ Nelson, Kevin Kenny, Richard Welty > are all power users in NY State (though maybe not the Binghamton area) and > would be great for this. > > I will share your message on Slack too. > > Bryan >

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > While you might think this is a good example for why such a policy is > needed it seems to me that the motivation for both the user blocks by > the DWG and the main argument that led to the conclusion in the German >

[Talk-us] STOP - All vehicles must register

The case of non-hard-surface roads brought this to mind. There are a few roads across the Adirondack Park that are open to the public (in summer) and have endpoints that look like http://i65.tinypic.com/2enq9ew.jpg In this case, I already recognize - tag the two cabins (they are a ranger

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Max Erickson wrote: > >I grew up in an area with these kinds of roads and I don't think > >they're technically compacted. The gravel, which is crushed > >limerstone, is laid down and due to its chemical properties creates a > >smooth

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Jack Burke wrote: > Keep in mind that OSM apparently uses "compacted" to refer to macadamized > roads, which is a specific process for building roads. > > Maybe they wiki should be updated to say that roads with loose pieces of > gravel

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you >> haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether >> it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick wrote: > Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on > imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything > with forest cover). > > While many of them should definitely be

Re: [Talk-us] tiger name issue in New York

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Max Erickson wrote: > I took note of it just seeing the name in parking lots in towns and on > obvious driveways. It seems armchair cleanup would be able to address > those. > > Maybe I will get over my reticence to edit the wiki and make a

Re: [Talk-us] tiger name issue in New York

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Max Erickson wrote: > About 1600 highways named "Adirondack Park" and another 300 named > "Adirondack Park Preserve". Mostly service drives that are in > Adirondack Park, but it seems unlikely that they are all actually > named that way. >

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Doug Hembry wrote: > Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming > rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be > to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and > "leisure=nature_reserve"

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:15 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Please, ENTER data using shared ways where it makes sense to do so. Nobody > is saying "don't do that." ALSO, please be aware that existing > NON-multipolygon data (especially imports and other "curated"

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

I'm somewhat relieved to hear Gleb and Frederik injecting a voice indicating that 'shared ways' separating regions might be an acceptable approach, because I've adopted it myself. Well, to some extent, any way. I'm generally against sharing ways EXCEPT when topology demands it -as it often does.

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > The tree cover issue is precisely why many states that have seasons have a > recurrent leaf-off (sometimes even in IR) imaging program. > > Arkansas has their imagery, along with a raft of other open data, available > on

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Thank you, Tod. Yes, I MIGHT find a VERY SELECT SUBSET of these data > SOMEWHAT useful, as minor amounts of them seem to be accurate and > more-up-to-date enough to introduce into OSM. But certainly not

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Agreed mostly. But I don't see primary/secondary as having anything to > do with physical; we more or less defined that as US vs state long ago. If you read the description on the Wiki, we defined no such thing, we merely

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road > network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway that > is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key >

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > There are a number of possible measures that could be considered for > improving old NHD imports: > > * removal of unnecessary tags to reduce the baggage mappers would have > to deal with when working on the data. > *

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I only posted that on the talk list and not here, so for those on > talk-us who don't read talk and who are familiar with the "imports are > always bad for the community" discussion, you might want to have a look > at a

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think this is probably a good example for imports discouraging manual > mapping. If this data was not there mappers would probably meanwhile > have added at least the larger rivers but with the dense network of NHD >

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On 10/13/2017 02:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just

Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Kerry Irons wrote: > Yes, but what about when there are two different names on street signs > depending on where you are on the street? It clearly is a mistake on the > part of the sign department, but in this case it probably means you

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote: > With that in hand, I can probably finish up New Jersey this week. Noo Joisey is done. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstre

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details > > A new list (CSV file) with way id, coordinates, and country/state/county > information. I've eliminated all objects that have been reported to be > ok, and plan to

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details > > A new list (CSV file) with way id, coordinates, and country/state/county > information. I've eliminated all objects that have been reported to be > ok, and plan to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved > someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other > contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy wrote: > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly > tagged as motorway. Do we have differing definitions of a Super

Re: [Talk-us] Great Lakes missing after osmosis update (diffs installation)

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Pilon, Michel (SSC/SPC) < michel.pi...@canada.ca> wrote: > Have you gotten a chance to validate the coastlines of the Great Lakes > during the last weekend? > > You’re the only one who responded to my “help” request…. > Oops, sorry, I thought I'd sent a reply. I

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Mark Bradley wrote: > > In the course of my mapping in the American Midwest, I have come across > several small country churches of GNIS origin that no longer exist. Often > there will be a nearby cemetery, but the church facility is

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Ed Hillsman wrote: > In my mapping in Albuquerque, I have come across a number of GNIS nodes > tagged as churches or schools, in built-up areas, that I am unable to find > on the ground anywhere near the coordinates. I’ve researched a few of

Re: [Talk-us] Great Lakes missing after osmosis update (diffs installation)

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Pilon, Michel (SSC/SPC) < michel.pi...@canada.ca> wrote: > Hello all, > > > > I am in the process of putting in place a local OSM server. > > > > Last Thursday September 21st I populated my PostGIS database using the > following command: > > > > *osm2pgsql

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date metadata in Bing imagery

On 07/27/2017 12:23 AM, Brian May wrote: As for legal use and permissions, always look to the state statutes that specifies handling of public records requests. That is always going to override anything at the county / local level. For example, in Florida, the state statute says no agency

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date metadata in Bing imagery

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > I'm really glad that Bryan brought this up and that you responded asking for > less technical instructions. I think that finding local imagery sources like > this is a really great use of people's time and is something that

[Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date metadata in Bing imagery

Oops, sent the following from the wrong return address, so the 'reply to the list' didn't happen. -- Forwarded message -- From: Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date me

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date metadata in Bing imagery

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Bryan Housel wrote: > What can you do to help? > > We collect this imagery data here: > https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index > > Once it is added to the editor layer index, it will be available in iD and > other editors. This plea

Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> Max Erickson writes: >> >> The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance >> (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that >> derived data is

Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Zip Data Removal Project (Update)

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Bryan Housel wrote: >> We haven’t discussed automatic removal of any other tiger tags. >> (I don’t have a strong opinion for either keeping or removing them.) > > I have a really strong opinion _against_ removing

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:47 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > I welcome and respect both of these perspectives, many, really and that can > be challenging. Minh's approach of "documenting what the map says" in the > wiki steps in a certain direction in the wiki that

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 7/11/17 2:46 PM, Kerry Irons wrote: >> If all of you want to have some fun with jurisdictional boundaries, take a >> look at College Corner, OH/IN. It is a village purposefully straddling the >> OH/IN state

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Kerry Irons wrote: > If all of you want to have some fun with jurisdictional boundaries, take a > look at College Corner, OH/IN. It is a village purposefully straddling the > OH/IN state lines with the main street being the state line.

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Kerry Irons wrote: > If all of you want to have some fun with jurisdictional boundaries, take a > look at College Corner, OH/IN. It is a village purposefully straddling the > OH/IN state lines with the main street being the state line.

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Adam Franco wrote: > On the "Gores" point: In Vermont, while these do not have any administrative > infrastructure and are managed by the State, they are surveyed and named > places with defined borders (shared with their surrounding Towns).

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

On Jul 9, 2017 3:14 PM, "Greg Troxel" <g...@lexort.com> wrote: Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> writes: > So to me, what makes sense for New York: > > admin level 2 - United States of America > admin level 4 - New York State > admin level 5 - New Yo

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Sorry, mistakenly replied privately when I meant to reply on-list: On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > For instance, OSM seems to use city, town, village, and hamlet as > members of a settlment hierarchy of populated places with varying > populations. That's

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

I've already had a fairly lengthy conversation, some time ago, with stevea about the situation in New York, and I think we have a reasonable understanding. Like the New England states, New York is divided into mutually exclusive counties, which are in turn divided into mutually exclusive

Re: [Talk-us] Erie Canalway Trail

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my neighbourhood in Niskayuna, the trail as placarded > leaves the Mohawk-Hudson path at Blatnick Park, backtracks along River > Road to Riverdale Road (there's a bike path on the shoulder

Re: [Talk-us] Erie Canalway Trail

On Jul 5, 2017 10:25 AM, "Richard Welty" wrote: > you may want to consider a super relation. some parts of the Canalway trail > are themselves named trails, for example the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail > from Schenectady to Albany. i think i have set up a relation for

[Talk-us] Erie Canalway Trail

The Erie Canalway Trail is a historic corridor and a major cycling route that runs near the route of the Erie Canal from Buffalo to Albany. https://www.ptny.org/cycle-the-erie-canal is the web site describing it, and there's an interactive trail map at http://www.ptny.org/bike-canal/map/. Alas,

Re: [Talk-us] NJ mass road demotions?

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I only saw this since NE2 had mass-upgraded everything in the US highway > system to trunk nationwide. Typically, trunk in the US has been meant to > mean an expressway, ie, basically a freeway, but it might have

Re: [Talk-us] NJ mass road demotions?

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > * highway=motorway: interstate or other long-distance restricted-access road > * highway=trunk: fast, busy State Highway or US Highway, often NHS/STRAHNET > * highway=primary: major State Highway or US Highway > *

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping traffic signals and stop signs using MapRoulette

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > So we're ignoring that nodes don't inherit the directionality of the > underlying way? Really sounds like you're trying to suggest using > direction=forward/backwards when a relation is what's actually needed. > There

Re: [Talk-us] NJ mass road demotions?

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > It would be really helpful if there were one single place where US common > practice was explained, succinctly (not like the verbal diarrhoea[2] on the > US Roads Tagging page) and unambiguously, and in a way that

Re: [Talk-us] Changesets under wrong user ID

robably reasonable. > > Toby > > On Jun 1, 2017 12:42 PM, "Steve Friedl" <st...@unixwiz.net> wrote: > >> Isn’t the easiest thing here to just comment on each changeset with the >> explanation? I have done this when I put an obviously wro

[Talk-us] Changesets under wrong user ID

I just realized that four days ago, I made a bunch of 'boots on the ground' changes that inadvertently got pushed to OSM using a security token in JOSM that was left over from a round of importing, and therefore they appear as the import user ID 'ke9tv-nysdec-lands' rather than my user ID 'ke9tv'.

Re: [Talk-us] Status report: "New York State DEC Lands"

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote: > When I checked the NYS GIS web site this week, I found that there was a > new version (dated April 2017) of the 'New York State DEC Lands' file. > > There appear to be a few dozen parcels ch

[Talk-us] Status report: "New York State DEC Lands"

When I checked the NYS GIS web site this week, I found that there was a new version (dated April 2017) of the 'New York State DEC Lands' file. There appear to be a few dozen parcels changed (out of some hundreds). I'm updating the modified parcels, tagging them using the workflow described in

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing Multipolygons

How current is the information behind your map? I've been tidying some multipolygons locally, and they seem to be rendering only on the left side. I don't think I've actually broken anything. If it might be more than a couple of weeks old, then I can explain that it's simply rendering old, bad

[Talk-us] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

Near where I live, there are several places where lane restrictions continue for several city blocks. These 'advance' turn restrictions are confusing to human drivers, and so far it seems that navigation systems can't cope with them at all. I'm wondering if it's even possible under our current

Re: [Talk-us] Response from TIGER about "driveways

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > I wrote to TIGER about the false "driveways" issue that I > discovered, and got a reply from Anne O'Connor of TUGER. Apparently it is a > known issue, but they would like to hear about any others that we may

Re: [Talk-us] No updates on zoom level 12?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7083920#map=12/41.3995/-74.0276 for one! My experience is that it can be weeks before I see level 12 tiles, unless I catch the render queue just right. On Apr 4, 2017 10:35 AM, "Clifford Snow" wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:52

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote: > Denis was right on with his response, and those are the type or responses > that we need if ... and I do say if ... this project is to move forward. > There are several hurdles in using this data, one being the size and

Re: [Talk-us] islands not rendering properly near Troy, NY

I'm relieved. I'd edited the riverbank recently, by West Point/ Highland Falls/ Fort Montgomery, while cleaning up some TIGER turds. I saw this thread go by on my phone, and I thought sure that I had broken it, but I'm away from my computer and couldn't check easily. The Hudson is far too

Re: [Talk-us] "toll" related tags appropriate for park entrances?

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > The tag seems functionally correct, it is paid access. Fee might apply, > but it seems more like it applies to the park itself, not the roads, or you > end up creating a very similar but specific use tag just for parks. >

Re: [Talk-us] Is this a bad import or an experiment?

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Eric Ladner wrote: > I can clean it up (manually), if everybody agrees. > * remove small polygonal driveways > * convert larger polygonal highways to actual highways where appropriate > > Are small driveways offensive, or is it just

[Talk-us] New York City watershed recreation areas

I just thought I'd make a quick note here that not all imports result in 'dead data'. I updated the New York City watershed recreation areas (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_Recreation_Areas for details of the import process) this evening. I did it by following

Re: [Talk-us] West Point

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote: > But then I realized that West Point is mapped rather peculiarly - rather > than being a multipolygon with landuse=military, as I'd have expected, it's > mapped as a city, boundary=administrative

[Talk-us] West Point

I have some questions about US Military Academy - West Point. I was resolving a map note http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/929376#map=14/41.3276/-74.1002=N , where the user queried a fence and gate signed, "US GOVERNMENT PROPERTY." Looking at the map, and with personal knowledge of the area, I

Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

Inadvertently sent this as a private reply when I meant to send it to the list: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Blake Girardot > wrote: > >> You bring up a good point of course. It sticks out

Re: [Talk-us] MO Stare Road Classifications.

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:55 PM, wrote: > > > I was thinking of using MODOT Functional classification maps to set roads > to. Basically the following: > > > > MODOT : OSM > > > > Interstate : motorway > > Freeway and Expressway : trunk > > Other Principal Arterial : primary >

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

Sorry for the digression. I was attempting to present the theory by which I chose tags for various closely related objects. In particular, the Blue Ridge Parkway might get 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation', if I understand the object of its existence. Since

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:07 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > The boundary=national_park tag has seen much use and abuse over many years. > Perhaps because it renders as green dashes, it was inappropriately used (and > is today?) for state parks and other

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Jason Remillard wrote: > hstore support, which would allow rendering boundary=protected_area is > being actively worked on the main style sheet. Its coming... > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1504 >

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Adam Franco wrote: > Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin! > > So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave > the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the >

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

My big issue with this is that we - alas! - need to have something "tagged for the renderer." Over on the other side of Lake Champlain and the Taconics, we have the same problem with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks, which are protected areas with an immense public-private partnership.

Re: [Talk-us] Choptank River

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > I've also separated some of the rivers from coastline just to make the > coastline more manageable in this area. > That strikes me as a very good idea, particularly in places where the locals don't consider the

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

Mess is right. There is fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between land ownership, land protection, land use and land cover. I know what I decided to do in the reimport of New York state lands, but I can't recommend it as a best practice, because every single tag that I proposed

Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey

I really like these experimental projects, especially if their methods are documented. Where I get nervous is if there is some other source that is 'authoritative', and OSM winds up becoming a repository for stale data. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but it's certainly something to watch

[Talk-us] Reimport complete: New York State DEC Lands

I am pleased to announce that the reimport of the New York State DEC Lands shapefile that I began in May is now, as far as I can tell, complete. The last step, auditing the website= and wikipedia= links for reasonableness, is now done, from Accabonac Marsh to Zuckermann Natural Resource Area.

Re: [Talk-us] Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

On 08/26/2016 01:57 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: I asked the question on the talk-us-nps mailing list. A number of NPS folks follow that list. NPS data center, IRMA[1], doesn't have boundaries for the park yet. [1] https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/ If it doesn't come from another source in the

Re: [Talk-us] Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

Perhaps you could inquire via the contact information in http://www.katahdinmaine.com/images/pdf/KatahdinVG2015-WEB.pdf where they got the GIS data? There are maps of the new area on pp. 44-45, 50-51, 54-55, 76-77. Failing that: We could georeference the map of the area at

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Kansas City addresses from maps.kcmo.org

On Jul 28, 2016 6:14 PM, "Clifford Snow" wrote: > While property lines don't belong in OSM, they can be useful. Having parcel boundaries can be useful to figure out the address of a building. Especially if you can get access to the property, i.e. the owner has no

Re: [Talk-us] Way to message a bunch of users at once?

I'd really not see OSM messaging turn into a vehicle for spam. I know that's not what you're doing, but a multi-message facility would surely be abused that way. The best thing I can think of off the top of my head. is to have the admins of lists.openstreetmap.org create a mailing list for your

Re: [Talk-us] Status and progress: NYS DEC Lands reimport

not be respecting their intent. Given that so much 'natural=wood' in that area is tagging areas that aerial photographs make clear are NOT woodland, it's hard to determine what was actually meant, beyond 'please paint this green on the map.' On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Kevin Kenny

<    1   2   3   >