Re: [Talk-transit] Question about train stations

Giulio Barba writes: > Hi, I'm writing to get your opinion on train stations. > In particular in reality the train stations used as attractions within the > theme parks. > In your opinion, should these stations be tagged using the > "public_transport" key? I see multiple shades of gray: 1)

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

"Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk" writes: > Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then > validating that extract for the gazetted/official place and road > names. The resultant validated dataset will be shared that via our > Opendata portal. Our state government has a strong

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF Strategic Planning 2023

Before looking at the content, I had an immediate reaction, which I'll provide anyway: The biggest issue in OSM is misuse of the data by not complying with the license terms, almost always by big companies. Often these same companies have employees that participate, and sometimes are

[OSM-talk] mapilio? (street-level imagery)

I just got spam from mapilio, implying that I was a "Mapilio contributor". This was, to my memory, the first I had heard of them. I have avoided most street-level imagery schemes as not being structurally similar to OSM (open source tooling, community project and licensing scheme). Looking

Re: [OSM-talk] Intercultural differences / cultural diversity / OSM communication behaviors

"Brian M. Sperlongano" writes: > I would caution against hyper-simplifying the combativeness of the mailing > lists as "cultural differences". I can think of several German participants > on Slack and Discord that dispel this stereotype. Similarly, I can think > of several American commenters

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

Courtney writes: > Can I ask--what is the fundamental objection to us trying to learn a bit > more about OSM communication habits? I think you are misinterpreting. I detected no objection to trying to learn. I only see objection to proprietary tools and pushing users to surveillance.

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

Courtney writes: > We also now have a new datapoint for our research. It will be interesting > to get a sense of how many within the community have principled objections > to proprietary software compared to members of the community who are > looking at useability, localization, and/or

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

Marc_marc writes: > Hello, > > Le 28.04.23 à 15:29, Marjan Van de Kauter a écrit : >> We are doing a research project on how OpenStreetMap users interact >> with each other. > > I am impressed (and disappointed) that those who do these surveys > have still not learned that part of the active

Re: [OSM-talk] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 197, Issue 27

"Ragone, Olivia via talk" writes: > We tend to use a standard changeset comment as it would be very > difficult to capture details of every change. However, since receiving > feedback on the Talk-GB mailing list, we have amended our standard > comment to be more representative of the type of

Re: [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

Andrew Harvey writes: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, 2:09 am Greg Troxel, wrote: > >> rob potter writes: >> >> As others pointed out those are website terms. You want to use the >> data, not the website, and you should read the Open Database License. >> >

Re: [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

rob potter writes: > *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data use > is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance. We have not > started using the information but we are implementing a system of > validation and change detection, then produce an

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

Snusmumriken writes: > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to ids >> will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim?

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

Sören Reinecke writes: > Using osm id is far from ideal but it is sufficient enough. If POI > owners are using OSM data, they will likely also pay attention to the > osm entry they have to keep it updated. So they will notice any > change. You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

stevea writes: > I'll state even more strongly than Frederik just did: "linking to an > OSM object by ID and expecting the ID to remain constant is asking for > trouble" is putting it mildly. It IS trouble. All it takes is one > single change to one single datum and boom, the assumption that

Re: [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)

john whelan writes: > I have concerns about the amount of effort we seem to be asking open data > set creators to make. I think it took me seven years to get the licensing > correct to be able to import the local bus stops and very early in the > process the head of the transit system said

Re: [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)

Simon Poole writes: >> Could you clarify the "perhaps" here? If something has been >> explicitly dedicated to the public domain via CC0, a similar >> statement, or a relevant law, should it not survive any relicensing >> attempt? Or is this just about the editorial decision of whether to >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

Minh Nguyen writes: > For what it's worth, the argument about transparency would probably be > more effective if it were actually an upfront expectation that applies > to everyone. As it is, anyone could simply set source=survey or > local_knowledge on their changeset and call it a day. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

Darafei Praliaskouski via talk writes: > This is okay. You still have the access to the reality to check if the edit > matches the reality. > > The core reason why companies can't share the imagery is that satellite > imagery providers often put a seat license on the imagery, with "publicly >

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

Frederik Ramm writes: > you are correct in all aspects, however in the spirit of friendly > collaboration I would say that a limited amount of > stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a > lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an >

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

A further issue we haven't talk about: How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy viewpoint? Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far? We show structures, and we show driveways. These don't feel invasive given imagery. They are very useful for navigation,

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

Matthew Woehlke writes: > On 31/08/2020 11.19, Greg Troxel wrote: >> What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree" >> but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way". If you >> didn't really mean that, sorry for

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

Matthew Woehlke writes: > On 31/08/2020 10.54, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Matthew Woehlke writes: >>> *You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not. >> >> A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is >> unreasonable. > &

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

Mike Thompson writes: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > >> On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> > What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked >> > access=private on the map? yes, driving on

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

Matthew Woehlke writes: >> I agree we need a new tag. As I see it >> >>access=yes >> >> legally-enshrined right of access, like a public street. (Also used >> for private conservation land where the landowner invites the >> public, even though technically they could change

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

On 8/30/20 11:00, Mike Thompson wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel <mailto:g...@lexort.com>> wrote:   Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is   not a crime. not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

"Alex Weech" writes: > Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by > default private land has public access, and landowners have to post > that trespassing is not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of > this part of the world, and other places don't have a posting

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

Tod Fitch writes: > There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a > card key or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have > access=private as you need explicit permission on each entry. > > But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner >

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

stevea writes: > We agree. The issues are both around the different behavior of the > (Carto) renderer when both landuse=residential and natural=wood are > combined (and there are highly complex ways they can be and are > "combined" in the OSM database), and around how mappers understand >

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

Bill Ricker writes: > A manufactured armchair consensus, however long on a Wiki, may still be > wrong on the ground. This point bears more complicated dicussion, but I think it's clear that something that was rough consensus in a general sense has been misrepresented to become a hard rule and a

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

Frederik Ramm writes: > > I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a > comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there > for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;) Agreed. Also, I think OSM has a defer-to-locals notion, and people far away

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

Anthony Costanzo writes: > county. CT's counties have no associated government (anymore) but they > are still commonly used for statistical purposes and they still have > cultural relevance as well - you will hear references in casual > conversations to Fairfield and Litchfield counties.

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

stevea writes: > Except, and I don't mean to split hairs needlessly here, a "county" in > 46 states (or 48 if we count county-equivalents in Alaska and > Louisiana) isn't the same thing as a county in two (Rhode Island and > Connecticut). So, in the above scenario when you describe "using them

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

stevea writes: > As I mentioned to Doug I exchanged a couple of emails with > user:jeisenberg (a principal contributor to Carto) about what was > going on with some examples of this, and Mr. Eisenberg explained to me > (in short) that it is a complicated ordering (or re-ordering) of > layers

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

stevea writes: >> Also, I don't believe in "states with no counties". I do believe in >> "county government dissolved". Still, the counties as boundaries >> continue to exist, and remain important, and shoudl still be >> admin_level=6. Many times interacting with the government you are >>

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

stevea writes: > Our wiki is a vital source of reference and "how to." It deserves the > very best effort we can give it. Sometimes, especially with a complex > topic where local knowledge matters, yet so also does learned, > scholarly perspective, a Discussion page gets wordy and detailed. I

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

stevea writes: > The topic is active again at > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#Recently_added_Connecticut_COG_.28Regions.29_as_5_and_CDP_as_10_should_be_deleted > and seems to need the assistance of seasoned political scientists who > can say whether a COG in

Re: [OSM-talk] It's time to manage libraries properly in OSM

Kathleen Lu via talk writes: > My local University is the same way. Students and faculty automatically > get access, but community and alumni can get access by paying fees. > > Is access=members an option? > > It implies that you have to become a member according to some criteria, but > that

Re: [OSM-talk] It's time to manage libraries properly in OSM

Andrew Harvey writes: > Currently we can already mark if the library is open to the public on not > (access=yes means open to the general public), but it's unclear how say a > school library or library restricted to attendees of an educational > facility like a university should be tagged (is it

Re: [OSM-talk] Strava high resolution heatmap

Jmapb via talk writes: > The latest I've heard is this thread from last November: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083563.html > > Rodrigo Davies at Strava says they "don't currently see a problem" with > using the heatmap for mapping. A screenshot of this

Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing Daylight Map Distribution]

> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing Daylight Map > Distribution] > From: Frederik Ramm > >> Nothing against the idea but what happened to the good old source tag >> where source=survey would point to mappers on the ground, and >> source=XYZ >> aerial imagery would

Re: [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help

Yes, but I mean cases when it is obviously, from imagery and land use, a single family house driveway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help

Yes, but I mean cases when it is obviously, from imagery and land use, a single family house driveway. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help

Dave F writes: > On 21/03/2020 20:59, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> This really seems unfair. >> >> When someone maps for OSM because they want to, they have goals and a >> typically a good attitude about community norms. >> >> When someone is a a paid

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help

Dave F writes: > On 21/03/2020 20:59, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> This really seems unfair. >> >> When someone maps for OSM because they want to, they have goals and a >> typically a good attitude about community norms. >> >> When someone is a a paid

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help

Dave F via talk writes: > In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the > quality of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of > errors as any other contributors, including experienced ones. > > Unsure why he thinks OSMF should be keeping an eye on contributors

Re: [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help

Dave F via talk writes: > In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the > quality of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of > errors as any other contributors, including experienced ones. > > Unsure why he thinks OSMF should be keeping an eye on contributors

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

I think it's reasonable to mark something as this was used by an import long ago, isn't used by mappers now, and the existence of it shouldn't be taken as a clue that it's current good practice but I think this should also be done in a way that is not unkind to or judgemental about

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

Mario Frasca writes: > I would say that 1 in 25 is low enough as not to be considered > "defacing" a web site.  what text have you used, concretely, which had > the impact you describe?  in my opinion the shortest, the better, and > I guess you did NOT use »It looks like this site forgot to put

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

Mike N writes: >> If you consider an urban search and rescue team's mission, and a large >> scale event, buildings on a map can be extremely helpful for planning >> and operations where the accountability of many directed searches of >> structures is imperative. > > That's good information - I

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

Michael Patrick writes: > There are international taxonomies that define standards for the various > terms involved in healthcare provision ( like > *https://www.hl7.org/about/index.cfm?ref=nav* > ). These are important for > many reasons, like Drs

Re: [Talk-us] Railway improvements; stations vs. halts

Clay Smalley writes: > Over the last few months, I've been doing some systematic improvements to > the passenger railway network across North America. Much of this has been > filling out public_transport=stop_area relations for every railway station, > including stop positions and platforms, as

Re: [Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news

Tod Fitch writes: > In the California Sierra Nevada I tagged a couple of roads with: > > conditional:access=“no @ (Nov-May)” > note=“Seasonal closure from first snow until spring, see CalTrans website for > status” > website=“http://www.dot.ca.gov/cgi-bin/roads.cgi” > > With the barrier=gate at

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

stevea writes: > Also, I find that "alt_name" works well for abbreviated county names, > as in California in certain contexts, the name of a county without the > word "county" appended unambiguously communicates a geography to > someone. (As in "From this part of Amador (county), you'll have to

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

Tod Fitch writes: > I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have > what seems to be unneeded alt_name tags in their boundary > relations. For example Pima County, Arizona has name=“Pima County” and > alt_name=“Pima”. Same for Pinal County in Arizona and Riverside, >

Re: [OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

"Jóhannes Birgir Jensson" writes: > Well the current issue in Iceland is a error of 50 cm between 1993 and > 2016 due to crust movements. So it's less than 2 meters but more than > one cm. That's interesting and a useful data point for later discussion about the points that my message said this

Re: [OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

Yantisa Akhadi writes: > To add more challenges to this issue is imagery offset > . The value > can even be varied from tiles to tiles, that we often need to shift the > object a couple of meters away. In a remote area, where there are

Re: [OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

"Jóhannes Birgir Jensson" writes: > I don't think we can or will be providing accuracy up to cm when most > of the stuff we map from our chairs is off by a meter or two anyways - > the beauty is that it doesn't matter for 99,99% of users. If a > centimeter matters then we are probably dealing

Re: [OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

Simon Poole writes: > Thus is a slightly tricky subject and it is not going away. > > For another aspect of it see > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/StephaneP/diary/390290 Thanks -- I had not seen that. I would say that to be pedantic, there is a minor error in the post, in that OSM

[OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

(This is a long and complicated subject and I am intentionally asking only part of the question.) It's been said from the beginning that coordinates in the openstreetmap datbase are in "WGS84". That more or less meant "what a GPS receiver showed", back in the days when GPS was the GNSS system of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

Paul Johnson writes: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote: > >> >>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from >> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a >> coherent network of interconnected roads. > > In which case, rendering

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

Bradley White writes: > The lack of consistent highway tagging in the US is one of the biggest > sources of frustration with this project as a whole to me. IMO, the US > community needs to make a decision to *either*: > > 1. Use 'trunk' to mean "major cross-country highway" and orthogonalize >

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

Tod Fitch writes: > My reading of the wiki indicates that for the United States a trunk is “a > high speed Arterial Divided highway that is partially grade separated.” [1] > > What is the problem with having the main road between regions/cities/towns > being “primary”? Do you like the

Re: [OSM-talk] handling street names in speech

Rory McCann writes: > I don't think this counts as “tagging for the renderer”, which is more > about adding false data to “make the map look like what you want” > (e.g. “I want a blue line here, like the `route=ferry` line, so I'll > use that”). > > I think it could be very helpful for place

Re: [OSM-talk] handling street names in speech

John Whelan writes: > One or two are problematic usually as the street name is an > abbreviation.    For example 1e Avenue in French meaning First Avenue. > > Any suggestions on how these should be handled?  This particular > application is aimed at partially sighted people but I feel we should

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails

Thanks for the nice summary. I have one minor issue to raise a question about: stevea writes: > As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually > classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are > sponsored at a state-level: these are properly tagged

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails

Richard Fairhurst writes: > Hi all, > > You might remember that back in March I wondered whether we could get > access to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's data, which they've given > to Google: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-March/019266.html > > Helpful people on

Re: [Talk-us] Temporary closures and OSMAnd offline map downloads

Jmapb writes: > On 5/30/2019 4:22 PM, Abhijit Kshirsagar wrote: >> Hello all, >> I'm an old OSM user and have recently moved to the US. >> What is the correct procedure to submit temporary (at least a few >> weeks long) road closures on OSM? >> Also, how long to changes typically take to make it

Re: [OSM-talk] correct (scholarly) attribution?

Frederik Ramm writes: > Hi, > > if someone writes a scientific paper and wants to reference an OSM data > set they used, what would be the correct way to do that? Typically such > mentions contain author and name of the work, and publication place and > year. Or maybe the web-like "retrieved on

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Michael Reichert writes: > JOSM runs its validation rules only on objects modified or created in > the current session. This seems more sensible both for experienced users > and newbies for two reasons: That seems like the right thing to do. > - Uses don't get overwhelmed with dozens or

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

brad writes: >>> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for >>> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags? >> Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to >> ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Andy Townsend writes: > With regard to British English usage, I think you're > correct*. Something described here as a "park" would pretty much match > the current description at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark (without the > urban requirement, but you've already talked

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Joseph Eisenberg writes: > On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries, >> schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or >> fill. But, boundary=protected_area is represented b

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

brad writes: > It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford > dictionary, a park is: No. Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean. Each tag is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition. That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Kevin Kenny writes: > The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate > - are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've > taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes > such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with >

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

One of the things that has come up is "mixed-use parks", where an area is not clearly one thing or the other. I see two kinds of cases (with of course a blurry line between the cases). One case is an area where there are two kinds of uses close together, in a way that's hard to draw a sensible

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Jmapb writes: > On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids >> play here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others >> consider things as much more elastic. It's difficult to please >> everybody;

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

OSM Volunteer stevea writes: > It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where > correct) where leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to > supersede leisure=park on many North American now-called-parks. I > think that's OK, maybe even overdue. To be clear, there are

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain langauge, and one is tagging tokens. People keep blurring them, and of course this is going to continue. We end up with having to explain "Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park." If we had #define

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

OSM Volunteer stevea writes: > How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, > (important?) state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the > national_park definition in our wiki? My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and end up with tags that

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

OSM Volunteer stevea writes: > I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The > leisure=park wiki recently improved to better state it means "an > urban/municipal" park, while boundary=national_park (or perhaps > leisure=nature_reserve, maybe boundary=protected_area) works on large,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > Mar 2, 2019, 4:13 PM by f...@zz.de: > >> In most jurisdications licensing and trade marks will only hold up >> when defended or enforced in court. Once you stop doing so you >> might loose your protection. >> > AFAIK risk of losing protection is frequently overstated

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Paul Norman via talk writes: > On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" >> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an >> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: >> >>

Re: [Talk-us] Monterey - Santa Cruz County line in Monterey Bay

Martijn van Exel writes: > You are correct. The official Monterey County GIS file from [1] has > the boundary at the shoreline, whereas OSM has it going out into the > ocean, see https://imgur.com/a/aCMROQZ > (OSM in orange, Official GIS in dark gray). > > I don’t

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Bryan Housel writes: > Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though? Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway. The basic issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local

Re: [Talk-us] Population during mandatory evacuations

Richard Fairhurst writes: > Minh Nguyen wrote: >> Following some discussion about this changeset in OSMUS >> Slack [2], I started a discussion on the wiki about preferring >> more stable population figures over supposition about >> temporary circumstances. [3] > > It's roughly analogous to a

Re: [Talk-us] Population during mandatory evacuations

Minh Nguyen writes: > (Crossposted to the talk-us and tagging lists.) > > Due to the ongoing Camp Fire in Northern California [1], the place POI > for the town of Paradise got tagged with population=0 before the > change was reverted. Following some discussion about this changeset in > OSMUS

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

Luis Villa writes: >> My guess is the only split that the majority in the state would instantly >> recognize would be “Northern California” and “Southern California”. However >> exactly where that split occurs is likely to be contested. :) >> >> Were I to hazard a guess, I would start on the

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Paul Johnson writes: > Not to mention that the situation of a country claiming territory that it > physically controls, but only it recognizes, is also a relatively rare > thing this decade. Playing it conservatively in the "Russia claims Crimea > and controls it, but unilaterally and by force

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Yuri Astrakhan writes: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two >> relations will overlap. >> >> That is absurd and

Re: [Talk-us] NYC Name Vandalism

I tend to agree that automated systems are going to be not that useful. I tend to notice some things in my area, but it's hard to keep track. This makes me wonder about a tool that - lets people sign up to watch edits, in some area, or in general, sort of like maproulette. Use some

Re: [Talk-us] Naming numbered roads as "State Route X", "Interstate X", etc.

From: Albert Pundt Subject: [Talk-us] Naming numbered roads as "State Route X", "Interstate X", etc. To: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap" Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 22:06:50 -0400 (10 hours, 17 minutes, 15 seconds ago) Attachment: [3. text/html]... I notice the user SSR_317

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

Frederik Ramm writes: > I've recently traced a little bit of stuff in Annetta, TX. The area I > looked at had a lot of potential for someone interested in mapping from > aerial imagery (houses, tracks, driveways, parking missing; some > driveways tagged as highway=residential etc.) and I did

Re: [Talk-us] Slack: Do we need an Alternative (was Planning an import in Price George...)

Martijn van Exel writes: > Hi Simon, > >> > * everyone is on it >> That's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy after you've essentially >> force migrated everybody there and then cut the ties with any other >> competing media (in OSM) so that you can have your nice walled garden. > > I would

Re: [Talk-us] 'address' tags in Massachusetts

There is a talk-us-massachusetts@ and I think review of your proposed mechanical edit should include that list. I suspect people would be amenable, but it would be good to publish the code, and the proposed files to upload, so that they can be reviewed. (I'm not clear on the rules for mechanical

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

> For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just > "downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect: In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right. Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status between a "road"

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

  1   2   3   4   5   >