Re: [Talk-us] Potential vandalism in Northern California (Pokémon Go?)

I think the National Park term causes a lot of problems. As I see it, there are two kinds of places: 1) a natural area with some accomodation for human use, which is mostly natural except for a few bits. 2) a semi-natural area which has grass and trees (instead of concrete), but is

Re: [OSM-talk] massgis:MANAGR_ABR=M173BS, massgis:DEED_ACRES=0.00000000 and other useless(?) tags

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > I encountered https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29690455 that is > obviously result of some unfinished import - somebody dumped random > database fields into OSM such as > > massgis:DEED_ACRES=0. > massgis:MANAGR_ABR=M173BS It's

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Daniel Koć <dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl> writes: > W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze: >> I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve. The protected_area >> scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and >> leisure=nature_reserve has

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Christoph Hormann writes: > On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4‡ wrote: >> >> I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on >> osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a >> popular kind of objects. > >> 1. Currently

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Martijn van Exel writes: > In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real > case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168 > > Since 1) this road does not

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Kevin Kenny writes: > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character > and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve > different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Paul Johnson writes: > Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting? That's the crux on the > super-two debate. I would consider at least two lanes each way, > free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the > minimum threshold for motorways.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Richie Kennedy writes: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Alternatively, a single >> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only >> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma). Essentially,

Re: [OSM-talk] DWG survey on organised editing

I think the survey asks excellent questions. One nit is that while I think the notion of paid/organized as a single notion is generally good, I do see a distinction in one area, and might have answered the anonymous question differently for the two sub-groups. Besides paid and unpaid, there is

Re: [Talk-us] guidelines regarding roads access

Adam Franco writes: > One additional note is that at least in my area, the TIGER import > incorrectly added access=private to many driveways and privately maintained > residential roads. Upon surveying these I've found that they are signed > "Private" or "PVT" on the

Re: [Talk-us] guidelines regarding roads access

"Ionut Radu - (p)" writes: > For us it's a little bit confusing if we should map those areas with > service, residential roads or even living streets and if there are > some gates at the entrance if we should tag them with restrictive > access. So, if you know some rules

Re: [Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

Frederik Ramm writes: > Hi, > > On 07.09.2017 16:51, Max Erickson wrote: >> Broadly speaking, yes, such continuity should apply. Maybe not using >> exactly the same rule as the US DOT. > > I know this is talk-us and I won't attempt to say anything USA specific > but such

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> > As someone who lives in a city street with one school in the middle and one >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

djakk djakk writes: > The thing is, I'm annoyed when there is a primary in the middle of a trunk > road (example : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/44.3996/-70.9439) I haven't been there, but the notion that the road is fundamentally different in the primary section

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

john whelan writes: >>A typical city road posted 30 mph might move at 35 mph, I probably should not have said city, but maybe town. Around me, things are less crowded and the speeds I referenced are not irresponsible. > As someone who lives in a city street with one

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Lester Caine writes: > http://map.project-osrm.org/?z=11=52.149501%2C-1.577225=52.048797%2C-1.856918=52.258912%2C-1.619625=en=0 > > 43.4km 33min > > Dragged to normal route via Mickleton it becomes 32.3km 34min, but > anybody who uses this section of the A46 will tell you

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> writes: > On 22 August 2017 14:46:33 BST, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:40:13AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >>> >>> Two points: >>> >>> Speed limit does not des

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

djakk djakk writes: > Yes Martin, I meant "physical characteristics". In the US, a road is tagged > "trunk" according to its physical characteristics, as Greg said previously > in this thread. That's true, but it's also the case that the roads that are (properly) tagged

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Richard writes: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:00:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 22. Aug 2017, at 15:46, Richard wrote: >> > >> > called differently, but this is it: >> >

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Lester Caine writes: >> I'm afraid that you can't use speed_limit : on small roads, the official >> speed_limit is not signed but follows the default one (90km/h in France >> even on a lanes=1.5 road !). > > Single carriageway roads here are 60MPH out of town and 30MPH in

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

djakk djakk writes: > In England and Japan, trunk roads continue inside village boundaries. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.2685/0.7700 ; > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.6261/139.1128 > Trunk is used as a super-primary class of roads. Yes, but in

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Colin Smale writes: > Interesting approach, which might work for Europe, but at the moment I > am not entirely convinced. What is strategic at a European level might > not be so strategic locally, and vice versa. The European numbers are > also not signposted everywhere,

Re: [Talk-us] possible upgrade for residential roads in Detroit

"Ionut Radu - (p)" writes: > I was looking over residential roads in central area of Detroit and I > was wondering if some of them should be upgraded to a superior > function class (e.g. tertiary or secondary). > Lots of them are Avenues and Boulevards with at least two

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

Kevin Kenny 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 York City, special case > admin level 6 - County, Borough (within New York City) > admin level 7 -

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

Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> writes: > In many new england states you list Town as 7 and City as 8. As a > local, this makes no sense to me. I misspoke about "you", sorry. Let me try again: At https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level it says

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

Kevin Kenny writes: > The default municipality elsewhere is a town. This is what you get > when you don't incorporate. Towns do not cross county lines. They are > similar to townships in other states. Every resident in New York State > resides in a town, a city, or

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

In many new england states you list Town as 7 and City as 8. As a local, this makes no sense to me. We have to keep separate what OSM means by words and what various places mean; often they are different. It's when they are close but not quite that it's extra hard! signature.asc

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

OSM Volunteer stevea writes: > To read this, then perhaps participate in first discussion, then > possibly "solve" these issues, take the second line (Massachusetts) as > an example. Massachusetts did the MassGIS import, which included > "City" boundaries and set

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging and rendering of television masts

Oleksiy Muzalyev writes: > Both "man_made=tower;tower:type=communications" and "man_made=mast" > are being used interchangeably. One of them is rendered with a good > icon and another not rendered at all on the OSM map. > I was not suggesting to re-tag this

[Talk-us] Boston Globe Marathon map has OSM basemap!

And it's even attributed. (I did write to someone at the Globe long ago about a prior unattributed map.) Beware that the page is really infested with ads/trackers. Install uMatrix before visiting :-)

Re: [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN Building Import

writes: > On that page, it states Dakota County encourages public use of this > GIS data. “The County Board of Commissioners adopted a policy of free > and open GIS data, in collaboration with the other six metropolitan > counties in the Twin Cities. More information

Re: [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN Building Import

writes: > Free and Open. Dakota County encourages the use of its published data > and supports it being added to OSM. They are aware of the project and > do not object. That's great to hear. Can you ask them to update their website to make permission to copy and

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

To me the biggest point is that having a tag "boundary=national_park" in OSM that is somehow tied to exactly which flavor of park administered by exactly which government *in the US* seems broken. The general OSM model is to have tags that have some meaning that can reasonably be applied

Re: [Talk-us] Choptank River

Simon Poole writes: > Am 16.01.2017 um 15:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > >> On Sunday 15 January 2017, Simon Poole wrote: >>> Given that Washington is supposedly the global centre of mapping >>> goodness, I hope we might be able to find somebody there that perhaps >>> is

Re: [Talk-us] Boston speed limit too Re: Michigan speed limit changes coming soon

Bill Ricker writes: > ​the question then is, can we tell (without driving in circles) is if an > existing ​30 mph tag in Boston was implicit or explicit ... to find which > might need fixing No, you probably can't. Perhaps massdot will update and you can compare. But, I

Re: [Talk-us] Boston speed limit too Re: Michigan speed limit changes coming soon

Also, we do have the implicit 30 mph tagged on many roads. While there are usually not signs, it is entirely verifable. One only has to read the law and measure the distance between houses (or observe that the area is built up with businesses). These two tasks are entirely within the ability

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

"Roger Slevin" writes: > I have watched this debate over the years - and I keep coming back to > what I think is a key question for the OSM community ... if there is > an existing robust standard for public transport information, then is > it really worth trying to add to

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

Stephen Sprunk writes: > I should point out that "bus lines", "cruise lines", "air lines", > etc. are plural when talking about one company (e.g. American > Airlines) because they operate a collection of individual lines > between specific locations, such as New York-Los

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

Felix Delattre writes: > I also like them. Thanks, Jo! > But isn't "line" an European wording? Would an English native speaker > intuitively understand the concepts of "line" and "itinerary"? I always For me (en_US), I find it awkward. > thought a "line" is more

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

Felix Delattre writes: > There are different concepts of routes in OpenStreetMap and GTFS. > Sometimes they are not existent or ambiguous. I am a native speaker of en_US. > 1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38): > In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route"

Re: [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

Andrew Wiseman writes: > On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >> I think that you're all overthinking it, and trying to fit a European >> square into a US circle. First of all, the US doesn't have pubs, unless the >> owner is specifically

Re: [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

Harald Kliems <kli...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:17 PM Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > >> >> That's not what the OSM tag means; it's more european. In OSM, "cafe" >> means (usually) that there is real food, but (always)

Re: [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

Jeffrey Ollie writes: > Third, the laws/regulations around liquor licenses are complex for various > historical and political reasons and vary state by state and probably even > city by city. What classifies as a bar in one state might be a restaurant > in another. Agreed that

Re: [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

Andrew Wiseman writes: > The wiki uses a European context, so here's my attempt at classifying what > is what in the US. Let me know what you think. I mostly agree; comments on details. > To me, a "pub" in the US would be bars that have food, but the food isn't > the main

Re: [Talk-us] MassGIS Road Import - Lanes

Bill Ricker writes: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Spencer Gardner > wrote: >> Is anyone on here familiar with the process that was used to upload MassGIS >> road data for the state of Massachusetts? I'm noticing a lot of incorrect >> lane

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

Frederik Ramm writes: > Hi, > > On 09/07/2016 02:48 AM, Mike N wrote: >> But if one less >> thing is wrong or outdated, that makes the data more useful to all clients. > > Except those humans who could have used that outdated thing as a marker > to tell them that the map

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

Clifford Snow writes: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:02 PM, teslas_moustache < > teslas_mousta...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> I'm not sure if property lines and ownership are useful. And I don't >> think that building outlines are included, so I may need to continue >> with

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

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > On this particular issue I believe you should use different tagging. > Currently there is almost no use of access=permit > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=permit > Typically if you require a permission for access it is "private"

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

[replying to the thread in general] I tend to be nervous about groups that are structurally like the DWG. However, when I look at what they've done over the years I've been involved, and the notion of the automated edits code, I have to say the DWG has seemed 100% reasonable and if anything

Re: [Talk-us] Common names of highways do not match road signs.

Paul Johnson writes: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Kevin Morgan > wrote: > >> It is confusing to use open street maps in my area(Central Ohio) for >> driving directions since the "common names" of high ways do not match >> road signs. The

Re: [Talk-us] NYC DEC Lands reimport

Kevin Kenny writes: > I used leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area > protect_class=1b for these six areas. The appearance therefore > changes. If you want it to change back, convince me that there's a > consensus that landuse=forest would not be tagging

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 20 giu 2016, alle ore 12:04, Tomas Straupis >> ha scritto: >> >> My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse" > > > why would that be desirable?

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Kevin Kenny writes: > landuse=conservation is formally deprecated. This is the real bug. There should be a set of landuse= tags that are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive and this one is obviously missing. It describes exactly what you are trying to

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

Eric Ladner <eric.lad...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > >> >> Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassifie

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

Kevin Kenny writes: > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a

Re: [Talk-us] How are US county boundaries legally defined?

Jake writes: > US mappers - do any of you know what government body is the keeper of truth > for Missouri county boundaries? I don't, but I would call the state GIS or highway departments and ask. It is likely that the country boundaries are defined in state statute and

Re: [Talk-us] Timezones in USA?

Frederik Ramm writes: > I have deleted a couple of such time zone polygons account of not being > verifiable on the ground. > > I don't know how time zones are defined "at the source" but it is very > unlikely that someone puts up signs. I guess there'll be some kind of >

Re: [Talk-us] Optimal / preferred checkin sizes

"Steve Friedl" writes: > I don't think that 3 square miles of road straightening ought to go in a > single [enormous] batch, but I'm not sure that 100 entries of the form > 'Straightened Main Street in MyTown" / "Straightened Elm Street in MyTown" / > "Straightened Euclid

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] Slack

Charlotte Wolter writes: > Really nice discussion of the issues around using for-profit tools > in an open-source organization. The for-profit point isn't really the core issue. IMHO the big issues are the use of non-Free software on servers the use of

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Kevin Kenny writes: > This isn't a matter of "get off my lawn." It's a matter of "there's no > promise that there's a path there at all." I think you're making a separate argument, that when there's some maybe-path that's indistinct, and not clearly followable, then

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Alan McConchie writes: > Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the > thread here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I > didn't explain very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is > an important idea. The wiki

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of social path. Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than to this tag :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Social_path

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Mike Thompson writes: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > >> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] >> > Totally unacceptable. OpenStreetMap maps what is observable on the ground > (generally). If

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Boston, MA, USA addr:housenumber Import

Jason Remillard writes: > The licensing link says the following, it is kind of weird. indeed. > "The City of Boston recognizes the value and benefit gained by sharing > GIS data. Although the City has made reasonable efforts to provide > accurate data, the City

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Boston, MA, USA addr:housenumber Import

I should point out that I'm not opposed to this import or address imports in general; generally, I am supportive. But, I think the doing an import right is vastly harder than someone who hasn't been through one thinks, and that it's good to iterate on approach and data quality, and not rush or

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Boston, MA, USA addr:housenumber Import

Roman Yepishev writes: > The wiki now contains updated files that set the postcode and add > a fixme tag to a building in case it already had the number that does > not match the official information from SAM. How many fixme tags would there be? How many of these fixme

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Boston, MA, USA addr:housenumber Import

Clifford Snow writes: > 4) Is it really necessary to upload that many notes during the import? if a > building is missing, can you add a node with the address information > instead of leaving a note? I am opposed to adding notes from bulk data. There are already a

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Piers vs Docks

Clifford Snow writes: > Unfortunately those trained in nautical matters is quite small. Most are > like me, a dock is something you walk out on from the shore. In some parts > of the country the docks are removed in the winter others are there > permanently. Agreed

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Piers vs Docks

Malcolm Herring writes: > On 11/03/2016 17:15, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: >> By the way, we recently had a discussion on tagging@osm >> about quay, pier etc. : > > That discussion was about the various mooring structures. The OP > refers to the

Re: [Talk-us] evacuation_center=yes

Blake Girardot writes: > What tags are we using in the US for disaster evacuation centers for > like hurricanes and things? > > http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/evacuation_center#map > > Shows none in the US but I know we have a lot. > > I am looking for the right tag to use but

Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim weakness

malenki writes: > Do you realize that the map usually shows the region you did look at > last? This may not necessarily be the region you want to have searched > at thus making a "search on displayed map" quite useless. > Sure looking at the location of the users IP address may

Re: [Talk-us] York County South Carolina

"Kiley, Jim" writes: > We would like to make our GIS Streets available to Open Street > Map. Upon inspection, the streets already look great so I know someone > is performing the updates. How can we help to keep the York County > streets as accurate as possible

Re: [Talk-us] San Diego Address Import Update

Tod Fitch writes: You raise a lot of really excellent and difficult points and I am not commenting on most of them. > Finally, Los Angeles. The incorporated area for LA is huge and it > surrounds other incorporated cities. But there are areas in LA like > Woodland Hills,

Re: [Talk-us] San Diego Address Import Update

Tod Fitch writes: > What is a “city” in US specific OSM terms? > > I prefer a postal city definition as that is the most useful for > routing purposes which I feel is the primary use of address data in > OSM. Or are we dealing with some other concept of addr:city? I see

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Collective Database Guideline (was Meta-Data Guideline)

Simon Poole writes: > If you have any feedback, questions of suggestions, please respond soon. > I'm planning on a final review and potential approval at the upcoming > LWG meeting on Tuesday and proceeding to formal board approval and > publishing in a matter of days. > > The

Re: [Talk-us] San Diego county addresses

Tod Fitch writes: > I am not local to that area so am not best to work on correcting > this. And, in fact, I am not sure I know the best way to fix them. The > house numbers and streets seem reasonable (at least the addresses > adjacent to the business I added seem

Re: [Talk-us] Highway tagging sort-of-dispute

Bradley White writes: > In urban areas, I would consider secondary to usually mean 4 lanes, 35 > mph(ish), maybe divided maybe not, with not much in the way of access > control. Primaries are faster, more controlled and usually wider - more > important roads in the

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

Bryan Housel writes: > Agree with everything you said about *why* groups are important, > except that: now that it's 2015, Facebook groups is really a better > place for this. Except that osm is part of the Free Sofware / Open Data world, and it isn't reasonable to

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

To me, one of the biggest things is about having all mappers act reasonably toward each other. We have some people that I'd describe as "lone wolf mappers". If they just add things, that's fine. But if they are retagging motorways as trunk, or deleting railroads, or otherwise being hostile,

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

Mike Dupont <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: >> in each state, have a state mailinglist, > I think that is a good idea, or a metro area > (ht

Re: [Talk-us] Downgrading 'motorways' around toll plazas?

James Mast writes: > Does anybody think it is a good idea to downgrade 'motorways' around > toll plazas to 'trunk' highways? I just noticed a user did this in > mass in NY and MA along I-90/I-87. [1] [2] He's even done this in PA a > few times. [3] No, this is not

Re: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

Mike Thompson writes: everything not quoted sounds good. > Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a OSM tag to describe “a broad, > flat, mostly open area in a mountainous region", yet I feel that these > names are important pieces of information that should be preserved

Re: [Talk-us] Android Phone App that Uses Garmin Format -- Was Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2015-09-30

Greg Morgan writes: > I think my Garmin GPS finally died. Has anyone had experience with or > can recommend an Android app that uses the Garmin file format? I seem > to be in areas where the data roaming does not shine. It would be > nice to toss one of these US

Re: [Talk-us] Best iOS app for GPS wander, GPX to laptop into OSM?

Marc Gemis writes: > Keypadmapper can send the recorded data via email. Keep in mind that keypadmapper is spyware :-) In all seriousness, it uploads locations and cell ids to a public database whenever it's running. If you're out explicitly doing mapping, that might be

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

Minh Nguyen writes: > On 2015-10-03 07:45, Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of >> information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we >> should not just delete the "private" tag. > > How

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

Tom Bloom writes: > -If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area, > delete it. If it's wrong and TIGER, yes delete it. If someone did it by hand, message them. Deleting driveways in urban areas is wrong, unless you are sure (meaning you have

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

"Richie Kennedy" writes: > To me, "unpaved" includes gravel surfaced roads (which is the > predominant surface type of non-state highways in rural Kansas). I'm > not inclined to mark every gravel road in Kansas as 'track' Unpaved does not at all imply track. If

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Frederik Ramm writes: > But that's how far my "convictions" go - as long as I don't survey where > Russ draws his abandoned railway lines, we're fine. In terms of reaching a detente, I think that's a very important point. I would never delete something unless I had walked

Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails

Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com writes: The OSM community is what OSM is even more than it is a map. People that are passionate about railways are a part of that community and they do contribute a lot, especially in the US where we don't have as many mappers. They pour lots of time and

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

moltonel molto...@gmail.com writes: This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The curent osm data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage it is hopeless for the consumer to extract more

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: sent from a phone Am 14.08.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com: These discussions are nuanced. Are there going to be things one person can identify that another can't- yes. But at the same time, I still think that as

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes: No, surely not, if there are actual rails on the ground then I'd say they should be mapped. An abandoned railway line having some rails in some places is not, however, sufficient reason to map the whole abandoned railway line even where tracks are

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?

James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com writes: I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause problems in some routing

Re: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?

James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com writes: I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause problems in some routing

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsealed footways/cycleways/paths and rendering

Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com writes: Do you think it is necessary, for the general user, to visually distinguish unsealed (unpaved/poor surface) footways/cycleways/paths from those that are sealed? This has been raised in an issue related to unsealed roads (with focus on

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft updated privacy policy

Simon Poole si...@poole.ch writes: I've produced an updated version of the OSM privacy policy: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Updated_Privacy_Policy (the original resides here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy). I have a few big-picture comments so I'm sending them to

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?

stevea stevea...@softworkers.com writes: I tag landuse=forest on National Forests. If there are any included wilderness areas, I tag them leisure=nature_reserve. Sometimes these boundaries can be quite complex via multipolygons, but I try to keep it as simple as this, and I seldom get

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?

Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area After reading the wiki page

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?

Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org writes: Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area[1] but I know it has been discussed a bunch, so someone might have an even better answer. I

<    1   2   3   4   5   >