>
> If you drive into a checkerboard
> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
> limits of private land.
>
In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
small yellow property markers at the boundaries.
Privately owned land within a NF
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> They're both 'legal' boundaries.
(and more).
Thank you, Kevin. Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to
understand it and I do now. Whew!
THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good
example wiki diagrams can go miles here —
But the Forest Service itself is showing the outer boundary on it's
websites, as I've mentioned above. On the higher resolution web map, there
is only a faint difference in lighter green / darker green color to show
which land within the official boundary is privately or federally owned,
and this
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
> shared between two outer rings?
>
> However, I also want to note that it is not clear
I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which is
preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
shared between two outer rings?
However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
mapping is correct.
The new outer boundaries
On 8/5/2020 9:11 PM, Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us wrote:
Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely damaged
and condemned. Is there a proper way to map these structures?
Thanks,
Eric
Hi Eric, I've used building=ruins (
Vào lúc 07:00 2020-08-30, Greg Troxel đã viết:
What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
access=private on the map? yes, driving on is usually technically not
illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
have a reason they'd approve of, it's
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
>
First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that
service=driveway implies
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,
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 overreacting.
>
> Fair enough. I probably
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 overreacting.
Fair enough. I probably should have said something like "my
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.
>
> I'm not sure if this is directed at me
OnAugust 31, 2020 at 1:12:09 AM PDT, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The same *will* happen to OSM; it is possible that today we can still
> get away with shenanigans like tagging a tourist attraction with "wink
> wink access=no but everybody goes there anyway"
...
> But we won't be able
> to deny this
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 is usually technically not
>> > illegal,
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.
I'm not sure if this is directed at me or at Mike. If at me, I'll point
out that
On 31/08/2020 10.18, Mike Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
you described above.
Sounds like my driveway. If you are
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
I agree on the tagging points, my comment on mapmakers was a response to
the claim that maps show the world as it is. By definition, maps are only
symbols. Those symbols can get extremely complex but they remain an
approximation of the real world. OSM should always strive to reflect what
is
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 is usually technically not
> > illegal, but unless you are going there
On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
"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
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg
wrote:
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
> to be shown...
>
In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
> that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
> plaster the map with
On 8/31/20 4:12 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a
tourism=* tag, no matter how many
access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that
would be disingenious.
Not so much "disingenuous" as misleading. Tourism implies
Hi,
On 31.08.20 05:38, stevea wrote:
> I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more
> clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in
> any way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line. However,
> nobody has been able to do
Aug 31, 2020, 00:17 by frede...@remote.org:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
>> Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.
>>
>
> In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice
> view; it needs to be signposted or
26 matches
Mail list logo
