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

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Clifford Snow > wrote: >> I map driveway when the house is set a distance from the main road, often >> time when the house can't be seen from the road. Mainly

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

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > I map driveway when the house is set a distance from the main road, often > time when the house can't be seen from the road. Mainly rural areas. I > figure that it might help volunteer fire and rescue operations.

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

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm asking because I've been mapping driveways along with building > outlines in my own neighbourhood - partly to get correct street directions > when the driveway to a house is on a different street from the one

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] "toll" related tags appropriate for park entrances?

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. As for routing, if the distance around is far enough, and the road size/speed

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Eric Ladner wrote: > And as far as the Mississippi dataset goes, it says its "Pensacola" (which > is in Florida) but is actually parts of Biloxi and Gulfport. Erlc, Thanks for catching my error. I looked at each of the 44 datasets to get

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

Not to poo-poo somebody giving to OSM, but the quality of that data isn't much better than hand drawn (and by "hand drawn" I mean with a mouse and drawing lines only without using the building tool or the extrude function). Non-orthogonal lines, self-intersecting ways, non-simplified ways,

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

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:07 PM Mike N wrote: > On 3/22/2017 2:02 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Are small driveways offensive, or is it just the polygonal ones that > > don't connect to anything? > > To me, it's just the disconnected polygons. Small driveways don't hurt >

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

Brad, Thanks for correcting the link. Clifford Sent from my Android phone. On Mar 22, 2017 9:59 AM, "Brad Neuhauser" wrote: > I think this is it? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_ > Footprints > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Rihards

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

On 3/22/2017 2:02 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Are small driveways offensive, or is it just the polygonal ones that don't connect to anything? To me, it's just the disconnected polygons. Small driveways don't hurt anything, and can only provide information such as telling self-driving cars which

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

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Brad Neuhauser > wrote: > I think this is it? > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_Footprints >

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > I think this is it? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_ > Footprints > > Yep, that's what it looks like to me, too. I also wanted to point out that at least the two .zip's I downloaded

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

I think this is it? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_Footprints On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Rihards wrote: > On 2017.03.22. 18:37, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I am happy to announce that Microsoft has made available approximately > > 9.8 million

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

On 2017.03.22. 18:37, Clifford Snow wrote: > I am happy to announce that Microsoft has made available approximately > 9.8 million building footprints including building heights in key > metropolitan areas. These footprints are licensed ODbL to allow > importing into OSM. These footprints where

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

I can clean it up (manually), if everybody agrees. * remove small polygonal driveways * convert larger polygonal highways to actual highways where appropriate On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:27 AM Tod Fitch wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 4:59 AM, Ian Dees

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

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 4:59 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2017 7:49 AM, "Paul Johnson" > wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Eric Ladner > wrote: >

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

I think Ian is correct. Looks like a mapping party. I tracked back some of the editors and found other places around the country (but mostly near LA) where residential areas were mapped with excruciating detail, but sloppy drawing, bad tagging, etc. (see

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

Functionally, I would argue that payment-required (or pass-required) park entries are effectively the same as a toll, anyhow. I'll give the example of driving to Cooke City, Montana, in the winter—the only way to get there with a wheeled vehicle is via Yellowstone National Park's northwest

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

On Mar 22, 2017 7:49 AM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Eric Ladner wrote: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/33.74152/-116.29677 > > So much wrongness.. I don't even know where to start in describing it. > This really

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

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Eric Ladner wrote: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/33.74152/-116.29677 > > So much wrongness.. I don't even know where to start in describing it. > This really "feels" like a botched import that has the potential to become

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

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/33.74152/-116.29677 So much wrongness.. I don't even know where to start in describing it. Eric ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us