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

On 3/24/2016 5:50 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem has been highlighted to them pretty

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

Thanks for reaching out Alan. I hope that we - and in particular I - haven't been too harsh in this discussion. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Alan McConchie wrote: > In fact the big picture is the opposite: rather than ignore OSM, we want > to expose OSM to a

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

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > > > My view on the way forward in this particular situation. > Agree with your general approach > > * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most > appropriate (maybe access=social?) > In

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

I've reached out directly and began conversations with Dan after reading this article. Good to hear from Alan too. My view on the way forward in this particular situation. * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most appropriate (maybe access=social?)* Get Caliparks

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

On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:59 -0700, Alan McConchie wrote: > It's true that the first comments on our changesets came 5 months ago, > but in our defense, we haven't been tagging any additional social_path > features since that time. We had always intended to seek input from > the community to make

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

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of > the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. It would be far better to create an additional tag rather than

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

Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. access=no is also a decent suggestion (and would not require discussion with the community beforehand), but there is likely a quantitative

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

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 they: 1) Don't want that trail to exist, they can

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

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most > important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks > and Stamen with the community. Is there a similar process for > institutional

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

Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks and Stamen with the community.  Is there a similar process for institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as there is for imports?  There

Re: [Talk-us] State relationpages

Okay. I found the repo: https://github.com/mvexel/relationpages There are sparse instructions. The scripts are messy but work(ed). If anyone wants to take on hosting this somewhere, that would make me happy. The time I can set aside to support this is,

Re: [Talk-us] State relationpages

I didn't even know they existed. What is their purpose? What is needed to maintain them? On March 24, 2016 9:51:56 AM EDT, Martijn van Exel wrote: >Hi, > >I haven’t paid any attention to these in a pretty long while. If they >are still useful I can try and find some time to

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

On 24/03/2016 12:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially deletes

Re: [Talk-us] State relationpages

Hi, I haven’t paid any attention to these in a pretty long while. If they are still useful I can try and find some time to look into the issue. Anyone else still using the relation pages? Anyone wanting to help out with maintaining them? Martijn > On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:09 AM, Paul Johnson

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

On 2016.03.24. 14:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially

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

Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially deletes the data for all other consumers. There

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

Hi Jason, all. I added the addr:city to the tags to use w/o confirming first - what is the balance between adding the address information directly on the building as opposed to using the boundaries? I suppose that for the ease of processing the building will need to have as much information as

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

They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] regards m [1] https://hi.stamen.com/patrolling-trails-in-openstreetmap-a1c4762efb70#.2qq0g0v79 On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >I find this article a bit worrying: > >

[Talk-us] State relationpages

I've noticed that http://184.73.220.107/relationpages/oklahoma%20state%20routes.html has not updated in an extremely long time now. What's going on with these? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

[Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Hi, I find this article a bit worrying: http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/03/caliparks-app-safer-hiking-trails-california/475047/ It is about an app that displays tracks in California public parks based on OSM. When officials were unhappy about unoffical paths being displayed, "Park