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
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.
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
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
Jun 2, 2020, 13:11 by g...@lexort.com:
> First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or
> are intended to align with property boundaries.
>
I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary
that is partially landuse=residential and partially
On Jun 2, 2020, at 4:11 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> stevea writes:
>> ...we ask the wider community "what do you think?" and "What are best
>> practices here?"
>
> Agreed this is really hard.
I'm heartened to hear others share not necessarily only frustration, but even
some difficulty in
The way it is now (I believe) is that Connecticut counties "exist" in OSM as
expected, tagged boundary=administrative + admin_level=6. Additionally,
(thanks to Mashin's entry, I believe) Connecticut has "Regional COGs" tagged
boundary=COG (with no admin_level tag, as that key associates with
Jun 2, 2020, 22:32 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
>> > should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or
>> > landuse=residential?
>>
>> Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as
>>
Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
> "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this land might
> be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio
> and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential
> land
Thank you Bill Ricker for the deep, thoughtful and researched background and
weigh-in on Connecticut and Rhode Island county status. I'm now leaning in the
direction of Greg Troxel that Rhode Island may indeed have counties which are
administrative, though I withhold my final judgement (and it
I don't recall ever having been asked to put down county of residence
on a federal form, though if I was I would have named the county I
lived in rather than leaving it blank. State forms ask for town of
residence if they ask for any such thing, since there are
administrative reasons why this
> should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or
landuse=residential?
Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as
landuse=residential, and the area used for farming (mostly crops) as
landuse=farmland.
In OpenStreetMap we want to map what is actually
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:42 AM Greg Troxel replied:
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
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
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary
> that is partially landuse=residential and partially
> landuse=industrial/farmland
I have mentioned before that the values OSM documents for the landuse key,
while good, are incomplete with
On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or
> > landuse=residential?
>
> Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as
> landuse=residential, and the area used for farming (mostly crops) as
>
Bill Ricker, this is in regards to your comment "Ward and Precinct not having
elective officers nor staff of government, but are accepted as admin_level=9
and 10 respectively; likewise Neighborhood admin_level=10, Unincorporated
community admin_level=8 need not have officers nor staff."
It may
Mateusz Konieczny writes:
"OSM is not a place to map property rights. And landuse=residential is
certainly not a tool for mapping boundaries of owned areas or property right
boundaries."
I don't wish to start an argument, and I ask with all the politeness I can
muster, but Mateusz, how can
18 matches
Mail list logo
