We're required to publish official road names on all maps and data as assigned by Federal Highways and approved by the park(s) superintendent. Most parks have several camp grounds. Few, if any, roads in most parks are signed in keeping with "like the wilderness" principle, and campground loops are only signed such as "B 20-30 Left, B 31-40 Right" referring to campsite numbers. Nor are many, if any, "Verifiable from Aerial Imagery". We use a combination of Mapping and Survey-grade GPS and various versions of leaf-off .5 m orthophoto to grab centerlines. For example, we have Smokemont Campground Road A, Elkmont Campground Road A, Cades Cove Campground Road A, etc. The official names are what we synchronize on with surrounding E911 jurisdictions, what first responders use, and what we use for Incident Command (see the other post to the list about the Colorado fire). And, yes, I do plan on campsite numbers, some day (another OSM project, perhaps).
If that runs afoul of OSM road naming convention, I don't have an alternative. Road naming, and other attributes (closed, access,etc...) is a VERY controversial issue for this park, and I'm sure others, and receives A LOT of attention (and complaints), based on what many Location Based Service Providers "render" on a web site or GPS. We're hoping that with OSM data we can achieve a good, accurate, and authentic public-domain source of park navigation data. I'm heading out of town for the weekend, plan on researching/fixing that way, building, and TIGER tag issue when I get back. -----Original Message----- From: Jason Remillard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:29 PM To: Akella, Mamata Cc: [email protected]; Imports US Subject: Re: [Talk-us-nps] [Imports-us] National Park Service Import Feedback Hi Mamata, Thomas I understand that the nps:verified tag is a very complicated situation. Ignoring the inter-organizational angles, It seem like you should be pretty serious about getting your access tags nailed. "Elkmont campground" is prefixed on all of the road names. I bet that the signs on the campground don't include those names. They probably just read "Road A", "Road B", etc. Generally we want the map to match what the signs say on the ground. If I am correct about the signs, I suggest, making the "Elkmont campground" node, an area around the entire site, then dropping the "Elkmont campground" prefex from your road names. The JOSM validation can miss things if you don't already have the current data loaded in. After you do the upload, you should shut down JOSM (at least delete the data layer), then re-download the entire area, and run the validator again. Your current amenity tagging might be the best you can do with the current software. Given that you are high profile customer of Mapbox, perhaps you could give them a friendly nudge to support semicolon amenity's in the rendering engine so that you can do the right thing in the OSM data. Honestly, it is not a big deal. You need to use OSM's definition of highway=service. Again, this not a big deal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway%3Dservice The three things I would focus on would be the access tag, the double buildings, and the road names. The rest of the issues are just picky details... Thanks Jason On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Akella, Mamata <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Mamata Akella here. Thank you so much for the detailed guidelines! > This is exactly the type of information that we're looking for and we > will incorporate it into our workflows. Specifically the tagging of > buildings, combining multiple features, and the removal of TIGER tags. > > We are still working through the nps:verified=yes tag. I think you > bring up a really interesting point about making minor edits to data > that we've tagged as verified. > > Let's keep this discussion going for sure! > > mamata > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jason Remillard > <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The NPS state of the map talk from this weekend was very interesting! >> I hope you are successful moving over NPS tiles to OSM. >> >> It reminded me of your import email from several weeks ago, I wanted >> to give you some feedback on your actual imported data! >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.65589&lon=-83.58185&zoom=16&laye >> rs=M >> >> - If you have multiple amenities on a single building, separate them >> with semicolons. Not sure if that will give mapbox issues, but it is >> the "right" thing to do as far as OSM data. I don't think it should >> be on the building node, unless you are tagging an exit/entrance of >> the building. >> >> - All of the buildings in this area were double imported. Be sure to >> run the JOSM validator over your changes before uploading. >> >> - There is an outdoor theater on the north west of the bounding box. >> It is tagged as 4 buildings. I would make an area that encompasses >> all of the buildings, and but the amenity and name tag on that, >> rather than tagging each roof section of the theater. Perhaps, change >> the building=yes, to building=roof. >> >> - There is a "Elkmont-Elkmont #2 Cemetery Access Road" road. It has >> some tiger tags, but it looks like you adjusted the geometry of the >> road to match your NPS data. This is fine, but its not really tiger >> data now. I would suggest taking the three tiger tags out. >> >> - The nps:verified tag. I don't really understand what this means. >> Perhaps a combination of a source= tag, and and access tag might >> allow you to restrict what is shown on the official online nps maps >> to areas that you want the public to stay on. We have a *lot* of >> established tags already, I think we should be able to express your >> intention with nps:verified with our existing tags. Also, more >> importantly, what does that mean to people that are mapping inside of >> the parks that are not employees of the NPS. Lets says I fix the >> small problems I just pointed out. Do I delete nps:verified because >> somebody outside of nps touched the data? I am sure the imported nps >> is not perfect. What are mappers supposed to do if they find a >> missing trail, or road, etc as far as the nps:verified tag? I assume >> you do want these improvements from the community in your tiles. >> >> - Way 2316586510, should probably be a service road. >> >> Thanks >> Jason. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Imports-us mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us > > _______________________________________________ Talk-us-nps mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-nps _______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
