Those roads have two names "B", and "Elkmont Campground Road B". alt_name tag?
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Colson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
